Packaging Erlang

[Bengt Kleberg]

Douglas Philips <dgou@REDACTED>On 2006-02-20 16:31, Douglas Philips wrote:
...deleted
> to be done re: user-installable packaging vs. system administrator 
> installable packaging. As far as I know, this is still in the realm of 
> mostly unexplored territory. Many interpreted languages (perl, python, 
> lisp) have had this problem to solve. Perl and Python (and TeX, which is 
> not typically lumped in) have solved this quite successfully with a 
> Comprehensive <something> Archive Network (CPAN, CTAN, etc.). On the 
> Mac, applications have (for the most part) moved away from installing 
> themselves into the system and needing priveleges, with preferences, 
> settings, etc. living under the home directory of the user(s) running them.

it has been described to me that one benefit of perl is cpan. afaik this 
is not a ''gnutools required'' system. i think erlang would ''look 
better'' if there was a cean system. i know i would like to build 
something like it :-)


> Perhaps Firefox would be a more acceptable (than CPAN, etc.)  example, 
> wherein from within which I can install extensions, etc. etc. etc.
> Perhaps a distinction between the base erlang system (which might need 
> an administrator to install) and user-add ons.

i agree that there is a distinction between the base erlang system and 
add ons. somewhere there is a kernel with c code, snd that is definitly 
  distinct.


> Or perhaps we're just confusing two very different deployment scenarios? 
> Back-room server rack unattended systems vs. user-interactive intensive 
> 'desktop' applications?

i think that it is possible to have a much more difficult installation 
procedure if the installer is a sysadm. i also think that even a sysadm 
could handle a simple installation :-)
the think to remember is that a simple installation must allow for 
choice. even a ''end user'' will at times want to install in the right 
place, as opposed to where the developper/packager expected the end user 
to install.


bengt