[wpkg-users] [Bug 79] Major WPKG enhancements, remote logging, doc, internal restructuring

[Jerome Haltom]

Linux machines already have such technology. A few choices in fact. I
use Apt.

I configure my own Apt repositories, I upload packages I need to them. I
make sure each host is configured to point at the proper apt repository,
and use the distro's built in upgrade mechanisms.

If I need advanced scripting, I just build my own .deb files. It's super
easy and can be done with nothing more than a collection of text files.
And versioning is handled automatically, dependencies, etc.

To be honest, that's all not that much different from Wpkg itself,
except Wpkg has to work with existing Windows packages, and so running
crud from the command line is the least common denominator. When
building Wpkg, I did it because I wanted Apt on Windows.

On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 14:24 +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> Jerome Haltom schrieb:
> 
> > Well, yeah. JScript is a poor choice for anything, but at the same time,
> > it worked. I'd have liked to take it all the way, turning it into a
> > "Real Program". In fact, somebody should do this. =)
> > 
> > I will say though I would argue against using any technology that isn't
> > "Windows native". That is, I would argue against using Python, or POSIX
> > shell. I think there's something to be said in this space that if you
> > want Windows admins to use and modify it, you need it to be built in
> > something familiar to Windows admins. A Java stack is not that. Python
> > would be closer.
> 
> Yes, that's true.
> 
> Using an interpreted language included in Windows, for a sub-100 kB file 
> everyone can view/edit/correct is a clear advantage, and it doesn't 
> scare people away (think of what I've written about adamoto, which 
> depended on perl/java/tomcat/etc.).
> Not having to install any 3rd party stuff is nice, too (well, there is a 
> WPKG Client now, but it's not obligatory, and I think/hope most users 
> like it).
> 
> Having said that, JScript is not very portable - I would still like to 
> have something comparable to WPKG for administering multiple Linux 
> machines. Any takers? :)
> 
> 



wpkg-users mailing list
wpkg-users at lists.wpkg.org
http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users