>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Andreas Kupries [mailto:andreask@[...].com]
>  Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:30 PM
>  To: Brandt, Joe; tdk@[...].com
>  Subject: RE: [TDK] Tcl module applications in installation repository.
>  
>  
>  
>  > How do people envision running tcl module applications that have
been
>  > installed into a transparent/installation repository?  Besides the
>  > obvious just run it.
>  
>  > The builtin tcl module stuff appears to only be looking at items
under
>  > the package directory.
>  
>  Yes. Scripts need only packages, so they look only for them.
>  Applications are of no interest to the package management code of the
>  Tcl core.
>  
>  > The package side of things makes sense.  However once you get
>  > applications installed, some with multiple versions, in multiple
>  > architectures what mechanisms are in place, or planned, to determine
>  > which application is the correct one to run.
>  
>  None.
>  
>  > For instance I don't readily see a builtin way of getting the
>  > architecture that you are currently on, same string anyways (ie
>  > linux-glibc2.3-ix86).
>  
>  package require platform
>  platform::identify

Thank you this is very helpful.

>  
>  > Also with the version being incorporated into the filename it's
>  > not a straight forward "add this directory to the PATH".
>  
>  > It would seem like you would always be stuck updating some sort of
>  > startup wrapper to run these applications, or creating a more
>  > intelligent wrapper to start these to fit you needs. An intelligent
>  > wrapper in some cases would not be much different than the whole
>  > package tcl module mechanism only for starting the latest version of
>  > a given application for your given architecture via an exec.
>  
>  Ah, you are thinking about 'exec' (tcl exec? shell exec?). I was not
>  thinking about that one at all. Only about starting from a shell,
>  i.e. terminal. But even for that, I know that the current setup of the
>  repository is not very good, due to the PATH issues, and no clear way
>  to handle multiple versions, or architectures.
>  

We use both exec methods, tcl and shell.

>  Currently the best way of dealing with applications is to 'get' them,
>  and then place them in some directory of your choice on the
>  PATH. 'install'ing applications does not really make sense yet.
>  
>  I will keep your idea of an 'intelligent' wrapper in mind while this
>  is percolating through my subconscious.
>  
>  ... I should note that such a wrapper doesn't have to be that
>  intelligent ... The information about the latest version can be
>  written into it by the repository manager, and the platform is
>  queryable, albeit requiring a proper tclsh in the PATH.
>  
>  	#!/bin/sh
>  	p=3D`echo 'package require platform;puts
>  [platform::identify];exit'|tclsh`
>  	exec /repository/application/${p}/foo-X.Y
>  
>  In this small shell script the X.Y would be writen by the repo
>  manager, based on its knowledge of the installed versions of foo.
>  
>  
>  > I realize this is more up to the end user to decide on, but I'm
>  > curious if there is more of a plan to this that we haven't been
>  > shown yet
>  
>  No.
>  
>  > or if I'm just blind to something more obvious.
>  
>  No, there is nothing obvious around, at least not to me.
>  
>  >  Maybe
>  > I'm just looking at the application end of a
>  > transparent/installation repository wrong?
>  
>  No, you are not.
>  
>  I think when I wrote this part and made applications installable it
>  was more for forms sake (*), so that the repository could be used as a
>  source for other repositories. It is becoming ever more clear that
>  running 'installed' applications is difficult at best.
>  

That is why I asked, they seemed a little difficult.  I like the idea of
being able to install applications.  Execing them with a wrapper would
be similar to what we do today with our other installed applications.  I
just wanted to see if there were any planned methods for doing this,
before striking out to create our own.

>  (*) This does not mean that I was aware of this when I did the
>  writing. I am currently trying to understand what I was (maybe)
>  thinking.
>  

I'm not sure if this situation was thought through or not.  By linking a
transparent repository to a given tcl installation you could exec an
application in a given repository that starts a tclsh/wish that is
hooked to a completely different repository which also may of may not be
hooked to the repository that the application lives in.  Not sure if
that's good or bad or indifferent.  Just a thought I was having.

>  --
>          Andreas Kupries <andreask@[...].com>
>          Developer @ http://www.ActiveState.com
>          Tel: +1 778-786-1122


Thanks again for your response.  At least I know I'm not having one of
those days...


NOTICE:  This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)=
 and may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized=
 review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the=
 intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy al=
l copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________
TDK mailing list
TDK@[...].com
http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/listinfo/tdk