Lex Spoon wrote:

>Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Or more specifically, you could have a utility for the "configurations" 
>>you describe, which would convert a single configuration into a SAR 
>>containing the specified packages.  This would probably not be the 
>>typical way people install things, but it would be handy for putting 
>>standalone apps on CD's as Stephane describes.
>>
>>Although I guess there is a question of how "deep" you'd go with such a 
>>utility... one might assume that the user already has such-and-such 
>>version of a Full image, and you'd only include the packages in the SAR 
>>which are not already in the Full image.
>>    
>>
>
>Somewhere in here, it would be nice for the guy who installs this
>mega-SAR to have some way to verify that all the dependencies are met. 
>Suppose the person does not have a pristine image of any particular
>kind, e.g. because they've added a bunch of your other mega-SAR's to
>their image already.
>  
>

Yeah, I was just brainstorming there.  Probably the configuration file 
should also be included in such a SAR, which could verify that 
dependencies are met.  The image would need to know which versions of 
packages had been installed.

- Doug