[Idea] tea packs

[davdroman]

Thinking a bit deeper about the implications of something like #362, I feel like there's a pattern arising that could be generalised as a tea feature.

This comment is especially hinting at it:

https://github.com/orgs/teaxyz/discussions/362#discussioncomment-4875585
Beware that you’ll be surprised how often things you don’t expect break if there isn’t POSIX in PATH.

Also:

https://github.com/orgs/teaxyz/discussions/436#discussioncomment-5280789
Notably we haven't packaged all of POSIX yet so this will likely leave a somewhat broken shell.

So, if the plan is to package all of POSIX (aka all of /usr/bin), could we perhaps consider that a tea "pack"?

# hypothetical syntax which reuses familiar + prefix
tea +pack/posix +nodejs.org^16 ... # PATH contains all of tea's POSIX, node js & user's PATH

It's up for discussion where pack definitions would live. Are they perhaps just locally defined? Maybe they can be declared as part of package.yml? Are they vended by tea pantry forks? Not sure, something to explore.

But, with the concept of packs in place, the --strain idea becomes a really simple thing to implement and for users to understand. All it does is discard the user's PATH! ✨

tea --strain +pack/posix +nodejs.org^16 ... # PATH contains all of tea's POSIX and node js. No user PATH.

Am I missing anything here? Is this super naive? I really can't tell but it certainly got me excited when I first thought of it.

[sschneider-ihre-pvs]

tea bags, really funny :D but every time I read something like package.* it reminds me of this bloated node_modules folder :(

[sschneider-ihre-pvs]

Also, windows

[mxcl]

Cool idea. They can just be packages that have null for build then we would need to update brewkit to skip them.

so tea +tea.xyz/pack/POSIX for example.