Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files'

[tomas]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:39:04AM -0600, John Meinel wrote:
> Josh England wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 11:01 +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:

[...]

> >Of course.  However, I believe that full OS revision control is a
> >legitimate need that Arch could be ideally suited for.  
> >
> >I'm pretty sure all the changes I'd like can be handled with more
> >(optional) metadata.  I'm not against some scripting glue, but to do
> >this I still need to be able to store/retrieve some metadata in the
> >archive.

Heh. The metadata discussion again :-)

> If you are asking for user-defined meta-data, how is this different from 
> creating a user-defined text file listing the metadata that you are 
> keeping track of [...]

Well, it ain't different -- and it is. If Arch provides a standardized
repository for (generic) file metadata, it's gently forcing applications
to agree on one mechanism. We'd (hopefully) have a standard interface
towards the hook scripts doing the actual dirty job (mknod, chown, what
not). Plus the chances of having an agreement on namespaces for more or
less widespread use cases (Unix ownerships, NT EAs, you name it) would
seem better. Plus the user is more confident not to mess things up
by relying on Arch's transactional savvy.

You come very close in your later mumblings (which I always read with
joy), about putting this stuff somewhere in or near .arch-inventory
or .arch-ids.

The question remains: what kind of metadata to support.

A little voice in me keeps saying ``this seems the perfect use case
for xl´´. Hm. Just imagine an .arch-metadata, full of file (and
directory) metadata, expressed in xl, and a standardized protocol
for passing that to (platform-specific, user-specific, context
sensitive) hook scripts.

Regards
-- tomás

pgpy7mG6kS3si.pgp
Description: PGP signature