xylem‘s Design Overview

Motivation

What is the motivation for developing xylem as a new tool as opposed to updating rosdep?

rosdep was originally designed for use with rosbuild and both code and command line interface are structured for that purpose. The notion of stacks, packages and manifests where where rosdep keys were defined at a stack level is deeply baked into the design. Later adaptations to work with catkin were bolted on to that design in a suboptimal way and in became increasingly hard to extend rosdep with new features. Thus, rosdep has a lot of unused or overly complicated code.

Moreover, rosdep is currently linked tightly to several other ROS tools like bloom, such that even minor changes in rosdep can have deep ramifications in the tool chain. Due to this fragility, releases are slow and infrequent. Moreover, rosdep is not modular enough to facilitate extensions through third-party python packages. Together, all this implies that it is extremely difficult to improve rosdep, implement new features, and get them released.

Therefore it was concluded that it be more efficient to start fresh, borrowing ideas and code from rosdep, but designing it the way it should be rather than the way it used to be. Hence, xylem was born.

Goals

xylem is supposed to supersede rosdep as a package manager abstraction tool that can be used to install dependencies on any supported platform in a uniform manner. In particular, the goals of xylem are the following.

Separation of concerns

xylem addresses one of the key shortcomings of rosdep, namely its tight coupling with other ROS tools, with a modular design that considers the following building blocks.

  • A core library that provides the infrastructure to read in rule files, resolve keys depending on the user platform and invokes package managers to install the desired software.
  • A set of plugins that provide specific functionality:

xylem comes with default plugins for all of the above points of extension.

Extensibility

Plugins should be able to extend the core tool from within other Python packages, such that extensions can be made without the need to touch the core package. This allows extensions to be developed and distributed somewhat independently of xylem releases. General purpose plugins that have proven to be useful to a range of users should be considered for inclusion into the core library.

Independence from ROS

One aim with designing xylem in a modular and extensible way is allowing it to be completely independent from ROS. In particular the core library should not have any ROS specific special cases or assumptions. Any functionality that is specific to ROS should be implemented as plugins, and possibly distributed as a separate package xylem-ros.

The ways in which rosdep is currently tied to ROS are:

  • Frontend input, for example by scanning a directory for ROS packages and checking / installing their dependencies.
  • Extracting resolution rules from rosdistro information.
  • API access from tools like catkin or bloom.
  • Use of other ROS specific packages, e.g. rospkg.os_detect.

Replace rosdep

One aim for xylem together with its ROS specific plugins is to provide a full future replacement for rosdep. This entails providing command line tools to check and install dependencies of ROS packages as well as providing an appropriate python API that allows tools such as catkin or bloom to query xylem for dependency information. We do not aim at backward compatibility at the CLI or API level, but at the level of provided features.

In particular, this also means that the keys currently specified in package.xml files of ROS packages should continue to work with xylem (for non-EOL distributions at the very least).

Full backward compatibility in particular to EOL tools such as rosbuild does not have to be achieved.

Consider improvements

The design of xylem should consider the know limitations of rosdep and improve beyond the functionality of rosdep. While proposed enhancements possibly are not implemented right away, it should be ensured that future extensions allow their realization without the need to break backwards-compatibility or for heavy redesign.

The following list of exemplar improvements is not necessarily exhaustive, nor definitive. More details on some of these ideas can be found further blow.

  • improve rule files
    • smaller backwards-compatible changes, mostly syntactic sugar for less repetition for different platforms (any_version, any_os)
    • support versions in rules files, e.g. parsed from package.xml files [details]
    • support different types of dependencies such as test dependencies
    • support package managers with options (such as formula options on homebrew, use flags on gentoo?)
    • consider precedence of conflicting rules [details]
    • inter-key dependencies [details]
  • support package manager sources (e.g. PPAs for APT on Ubuntu) [details]
  • support package manager prerequisites (such as PM is installed, PM cache is up-to-date, correct PPA is installed) [details]
  • support multiple resolution alternatives on the same platform with sensible defaults as well as user-configurable arbitration between them (e.g. macports vs homebrew, apt vs pip) [details <Alternative resolutions_>_]
  • configure source/cache location and supply working cache with installation [details]
  • configure package manager plugins from config/cli (e.g. whether to use sudo or not, supply additional command line arguments) [details]
  • support concurrent invocations of xylem, in particular the update verb for tools such as bloom running in parallel. [details]
  • support automatic cache updates (integrate update with native package manager, cronjob, ...)
  • support virtual packages and/or A OR B logic
  • support proxies
  • support derivative operating systems (e.g. use Ubuntu rules on Ubuntu derivatives if no specific rules are available)
  • warn users when xylem is out of date [details]
  • version the rules database and force update on version changes
  • improve situation on Windows

Anti-Goals

xylem does not aim to replace package managers or package software itself. While support for package-manager-less platforms can be achieved with backend plugins such as the source installer, it is not an objective of xylem to systematically maintain such installation scripts.

Supported platforms

xylem aims to support at least the following platforms (which is what rosdep currently supports) with their native package managers

  • arch (pacman)
  • windows/cygwin (apt-cyg)
  • debian (apt)
  • freebsd (pkg_add)
  • gentoo (portage)
  • opensuse (zypper)
  • osx (homebrew, macports)
  • redhat (yum)

as well as the following language-specific cross-platform packages managers

  • ruby (gem)
  • python (pip)

and a platform independent source installer:

  • source

On the wish list is better support for Windows, but it is unclear how this could be achieved.

Plugins

In order to be modular and extensible by independent Python packages, xylem uses the Entry Points concept of setuptools. The following discusses the pluggable parts of xylem laid out above in more detail.

OS support

Operating system support includes:

  • detecting OS name, version, codename (currently in rospkg.os_detect)
  • register installers, default installer, installer order of preference etc with installer context (rosdep2.installers.InstallerContext)

Notes:

  • Should OS support be plugin at all?
  • Should are OS settings like registered installers and installer order of preference always per-OS as is in rosdep, or do we possibly need optional per-version distinction for these?
  • What is relation between OS support plugins and installer plugins? Should OS plugin register all supported installers? Should installer plugin be able to register themselves for specific or all platforms?
  • consider the distinction version_type vs codename_type
  • support overriding detected OS from settings/cli

Backend installers

The supported installers are defined as plugins such that support for new installers can be added by external Python packages. Installers typically represent support for a specific package manager like APT, but not necessarily, as is the case for the source installer. The minimal functionality an installer needs to provide is:

  • check if specific packages are installed
  • install packages

Additional functionality is optional (these are ideas):

  • support uninstall
    • e.g. source installer does not support this
  • support native reinstall
    • is using the pm’s native reinstall command as opposed to uninstall+install ever needed?
  • support to attempt install without dependencies
    • this would be needed for a specified-only option to the install command.
    • not sure if we need this at all.
  • support package versions
    • check which version of package is installed
    • check if installed package is outdated
    • upgrade installed package to latest version
    • install specific version of package
  • support cache update
    • check if package manager cache is outdated
    • update cache (like apt-get update) or provide instructions for user how to update pm
  • support options
    • some package managers additional options supplied when installing a package (homebrew, gentoo (use flags)?)
    • pass correct options to installer
    • check if options for installed package satisfy the requested options (e.g. they are superset)
  • native dependencies
    • list all package manager dependencies of specific packages
    • the idea is that we let the package manager install the dependencies and only issue the install command for the necessary leafs
    • do we need this?

Notes:

  • how is support for optional features formalized in the code?
  • if new package managers can be added as plugins, then they need to be able to register themselves for specific or all operating systems

Frontend input

It needs to be possible to extend the way the user passes keys to be resolved to xylem. The basic usage would be directly passing a list of keys on the command line or API function. Another input would be parsing of ROS packages and checking the package.xml files. Another one would be a new file format .xylem, which allows non ROS packages to specify dependencies for convenient installation.

Notes:

  • I’m not sure how exactly this would look.
  • Implementing these as new command verbs gives ultimate flexibility, but on the other hand it makes much more sense if the standard commands like install or check can be extended. E.g. ROS support plugins for xylem should be able to provide an option like --from-path for the install verb.
  • For compatibility of different frontends there are the following ideas:
    • Either the desired frontend has to be specified at the command line, e.g. xylem install --frontend=ros desktop_full --rosdistro=hydro, xylem install --ros --from-path src,
    • or the frontends register command line options that are unique, e.g. xylem install --rospkg desktop_full, xylem install --ros-from- path .,
    • or xylem can work some magic to find out which frontend the user desires, i.e. it determines if the input from the positional command line arguments consists of keys, directories, or ROS-packages. For directories is checks if they contain ROS packages with package.xml files or .xylem files. There is an order on which frontend takes precedence, which can be overwritten by explicitly specifying the frontend. This last alternative might make for the best just works user experience, but needs to be carefully thought through in order to not appear confusing.

Rules sources

The rosdep model for the definition of rules is configured in source files (e.g. 20-default-sources.yaml) that contain the URLs of rules files (base.yaml). Multiple source files are considered in their alphabetical order. Having multiple files allows robot vendors to ship their own source files independently of the xylem base install. Possibly, rules plugins could also make use of this by shipping with additional default sources files. Initially, xylem will be using the same format, with some backwards- compatible (and already implemented) changes to the rules file format (any_os, any_version). Plugins can define new types of sources for rules. Right now we can foresee the following cases that might come as new source plugins:

  • New rules file format that is not compatible with the existing format.
    • This would work in a very similar fashion to the initial plugin.
  • Rules derived from rosdistro.
    • This is somewhat different, since it’s sources are not specified by URLs but rather implicit using the rosdistro package.

Notes:

  • Do we only support the cache model for sources, where a static rules database is built with the update command, but no new information is generated upon key resolution? This implies that rules sources that query some other database format (rosdistro?) or online sources at resolution time are not possible. In particular the rosdistro plugin would generate a list of rules for all released packages upon update (and not on-demand upon key resolution).

  • What do the rules plugins return? The parsed rules from a given file in a (clearly defined) rules database format (something like the current dict database)? In any case the returned data should be in some versioned format, to allow future extensions to that format. This is probably the same format in which xylem keeps cached the database.

  • Should we consider allowing for the possibility of loading parsed (and pickled) rules databases with the update command (for increased speed of update)? Here the original rules files would always be specified, but a binary version can be additionally added (somewhat like in homebrew all formula need to specify the source to build them, but some can additionally provide the binary package as a bottle).

  • When are the different rules sourced merged (including arbitration of precedence)? During update, or while loading the cache database for resolution? Do we keep all possible resolutions in the database, or only the one that takes highest precedence?

  • How is order of precedence defined between different rules plugins? Only by the order of the rules files? Do platform support plugins play a role in defining the precedence of different installers on a per-OS or per-version basis? Can user settings influence the order of precedence?

  • Should the .list files be able to reference sources from multiple rules source plugins within the same file (which would also allow to control precedence if the entries are ordered within the file)?

    One can imagine a source files to look like this (not sure if this is correct YAML, but the idea should be clear):

    # Overriding rules with highest precedence, but with legacy format
- format: rules
  sources:
    - 'some/special/rules.yaml'
# Latest rules in new format
- format: rules2
  sources:
    - 'latest/rules/using/new/rules/format/base.yaml'
# Existing rules in legacy format
- format: rules
  sources:
    - 'https://github.com/ros/rosdistro/raw/master/rosdep/base.yaml'
    - 'https://github.com/ros/rosdistro/raw/master/rosdep/python.yaml'
    - 'https://github.com/ros/rosdistro/raw/master/rosdep/ruby.yaml'
# this entry for the rosdistro rules plugin has no URLs, but is
  present to mark it as least-precedent
- format: rosdistro

  • Do we support rules plugins that do not have an entry in any sources file (like rosdistro), or do we force all plugins to have at least an empty entry (example file above) in order to be ‘activated’ upon update.

  • Should rules plugins include an abstraction to tell if the database is out of date (for a specific URL)? Something like comparing the last- changed timestamp of the cached databased with the last-changed timestamp of the online rules file. This might be used to speed up update and also to determine whether to remind the user to call update.

Commands

The top level command verbs to the xylem executable should be plugins. These can pretty much define any new functionality. It is not quite clear how exactly other plugins can interact with commands, e.g. frontend plugins should somehow be able to extend the install verb.

These are the core commands:

  • update to update the rules database

    • If partial updates are supported, where only outdated rules files are pulled, there should be an option to force updating everything.
    • Needs to make sure to remove stale database cache files even on partial update, which are no longer referenced from the source files. Possibly add a clean command, that wipes the cache completely.

  • install to install packages

    • options: --reinstalll, --simulate, --skip-keys, --default-yes, --continue-on-error, --specified-only (would this mean to not resolve dependencies on xylem level, or also stop possible dependency resolution of package manager, if that is even possible)

  • check to check if packages installed

    • options: --skip-keys, --continue-on-error, --specified- only

  • init to initialize config file and sources.list.d (possibly in custom location according to XYLEM_PREFIX). By default the built- in default sources / config is copied to the new location. Is a no-op with warning if sources / config is present.

    options:

    • --from-prefix to copy the config/sources that would be used with this given prefix
    • --from-system to copy the config/sources that would be used with empty prefix
    • --force to clear the config/sources even if they are present

These commands for dependency resolution could be useful:

  • depends (options: --depth where 0 means no limit)
  • depends-on (options: --depth where 0 means no limit)

There should also be some commands for checking how a key resolves on a specific operating system, possibly listing alternative resolutions (pip vs apt) highlighting the one that would be chosen with install. It should also be possible to determine where these resolutions come from, e.g. which source files.

  • resolve
  • where-defined

Notes:

  • we might want to steal the alias mechanism from catkin_tools, but that is maybe low priority, since xylem command invocations would be much less frequent than catkin build invocations.

Improvements over rosdep

In the following we elaborate on some of the concrete improvements over rosdep listed above. Some of them are far future, some should be implemented right away.

Sources and cache location

The xylem model of a lookup database cache that is updated with and update command is somewhat analogous to apt-get. By default a system-wide cache is maintained that needs to be updated with sudo. We assume that many developer machines are single-user and/or are maintained by an admin that ensures regular update invocations (e.g. cronjob).

On top of the general scenario the following specific use-cases need to be supported with regards to the database cache:

  • xylem needs to allow users to maintain their own cache in their home folder and use xylem independent from the system-wide installation and without super user privileges.
  • Robot vendors need to be able to add to the default sources independently from the core xylem install and without post- installation work.
  • xylem needs to be functional out of the box after installation. update requires internet connectivity, which is not given in some lab/robot environments. Therefore we need to make sure that xylem can be packaged (e.g. as debian) with a pre-generated binary cache. This needs to be possible for the default sources bundled with xylem as well as vendor supplied additional source files.
  • Tools like bloom need to be able to create temporary caches independent from the system wide install and without super-user privileges.

We propose the following solution:

  • Firstly, we assume that each URL/entry in the source files has it’s own binary database cache file, all of which get merged upon lookup.
  • The user can specify the XYLEM_PREFIX environment variable (overwritten by a command line option, maybe --config-prefix or -c). By default an empty prefix is assumed.
  • The cache will live in <prefix>/var/cache/xylem and the sources in <prefix>/etc/xylem/sources.d/
  • A xylem installation comes bundled with default source files and default cache files. However, in particular the cache is not installed into the /var/cache location directly.
  • The init command installs the default sources and default cache into the corresponding locations. There are command line options to copy existing sources/cache from another prefix, but by default the built-in files are used. The source files are only installed if they are not present. The cache files are only installed, if the corresponding source file was either not present, or was present and identical to the default. Existing cache files are not overwritten. There is a flag (maybe --force), that causes it to overwrite the default files (sources and cache). Additional source files/cache files are not overwritten.
  • init is called as part of the post-installation work at least for debians, maybe also pip? Note that this does not require internet connection and sets up a working config and cache.
  • The default source files could be handled as conffiles in the debians, such that they are updated upon apt-get upgrade, where the user is queried what should happen if he has changed the default sources.
  • update does not automatically use the the built-in sources if none exist under the given prefix. However, if the default source files do not exist, it warns the user and possibly tells him to call xylem init (or even offers to call it). This warning can be disabled in the settings for users that want to explicitly delete the default config files.
  • Robot vendors that want to supply additional default sources can hook into init (with an entry point) and register their additional default sources as well as binary caches. All the above mechanisms work for those vendors. For example, if the additional vendor package gets installed, a subsequent post-install init does recognize the missing caches for installed default sources and installs them to ensure out-of-the-box operation. Likewise, calling update in a custom prefix after installing an additional vendor package will warn the user, that some of the default sources are not installed and urge her to call init, which will add these additional default sources (and cache files), while not touching the existing default source files from the core library.

For rosdep, there is pull request for a slightly different solution. However, what we suggest addresses some of the remaining issues:

  • (re-)installing from debs does not overwrite existing cache files.
  • python2 and python3 debians can be installed side-by-side (at least if the default source files are not handled as conffiles)

Notes:

  • Should it be sources.list.d or sources.d? Note that we probably change the source files from .list to .yaml, so does sources.list.d still make sense?
  • Can we ensure that the binary (pickled) database format is compatible between python2 and python3?
  • If the default files have been updated, and the user updates the xylem installation, init will not change the existing default sources. Do we need to / can we detect if they are unchanged and replace them automatically if they are unchanged? If they are changed, ask the user what to do (like debian conffile).
  • Do the API calls respect the XYLEM_PREFIX environment variable or need explicit setting of a prefix parameter? I think the latter.
  • It was mentioned that the debian install needs to work out-of-the-box “without any post-installation work”. Why exactly? Is post-install work (like calling init) ok if it does not require internet connectivity?
  • Maybe the system wide settings file is also affected by XYLEM_PREFIX, i.e. lives in <prefix>/etc/xylem/config?

Settings and command line arguments

There should be a canonical way to supply arguments to xylem. We propose a system config file, a user config file and command line options. The order of precedence of arguments specified multiple times is:

command line > user > system

We use yaml syntax for the configuration files, and suggest the following locations:

  • system: <prefix>/etc/xylem/config.yaml
  • user: $HOME/.xylem.yaml

In general all options should be supported both by the CLI and the config files (where it makes sense). One exception is the environment variable XYLEM_PREFIX, because this configures the location of the system-wide config file in the first place.

Command line arguments can be grouped in the following way:

  • global command line arguments applicable to all commands such as disable-plugins or os
  • command specific command line arguments
  • In order to achieve a good user experience, the command specific options should be further grouped. For example, all commands that take a list of keys as arguments, should do so in the same way, e.g. offering skip-keys)

It has to be seen if and how either or both kinds of arguments can be injected by plugins (e.g. frontend plugins inject new arguments to all commands that take a list of keys as input).

In particular it needs to be possible to supply arguments to the backend installer plugins (e.g. as-root or additional-arguments, see rosdep#307). yaml format gives a lot of flexibility, but there should also be some conventions (not necessarily enforced) to ensure that the plugins name their options in a uniform way, such that it may even be possible and reasonable to pass certain options to all installer plugins.

Notes:

  • Should user file be in $HOME/.config/xylem.yaml, or even $HOME/.config/xylem/config.yaml (see stackexchange.com)? What about config locations on Windows?

Inter-key dependencies in rules files

In general, we rely on the backend package manager to install dependencies for resolved keys. Dependencies between keys in rules files is at the moment only used for the interplay between homebrew and pip on OS X it seems. Should this be a general feature for rules to depend on other keys? In particular if we reactivate the source installer this would be needed. In particular when considering adding versions to the rules files, doing dependency resolution right is not quite trivial I guess.

Dependencies on other keys might be reasonable on different levels. Currently they are part of the installer section, but maybe they could be defined also at the rule level.

Notify user about outdated database

Ideally, if the source plugins can tell when they are outdated, we would fork a process on every invocation to check if database is out of date and inform the user that an update would be good on the next run. Maybe limit the update check to only fire if the database has not been updated for a certain amount of time (a day, a week, could be customizable).

Versions in rules files

In general the user should expect a command xylem install boost to install the latest version of boost on the given system, i.e. on Ubuntu the version that apt-get install boost would install. For some package managers, like apt for a specific Ubuntu release, this might be always the same version of boost, for other package managers such as pip or homebrew, this will always refer to the latest version. This gives rise to two challenges with respect to software versions. Firstly, at any given time the key boost refers to different versions of the boost library on different platforms. Secondly, at two different points in time the key boost refers to two different versions of the boost library on the same platform. These challenges need to be taken into consideration, since the goal of xylem is to allow specification of dependencies in a uniform way that is robust over time, i.e. can be supplied as part of install instructions today and still be valid tomorrow.

At the moment, rosdep does not really consider versions, which users find confusing in particular in conjunction with ROS packages that may specify versioned dependencies (rosdep#325).

In general we assume that package managers can only install one version of a specific package at a time (largely true for apt, homebrew, pip). We also assume that we never install a specific version of a package with the package manager, but only the latest version, or possibly upgrade an already installed package to the latest version. Nevertheless, the package manager should be able to tell us, which version of a package is installed and which version would be installed/upgraded (i.e. the latest version on that platform).

For some libraries multiple incompatible major versions need to be present at the same time. Here xylem follows suite with package managers such as apt and homebrew and introduces new keys for the specific versions (as rosdep does currently). For example, for Eigen there are the version specific eigen2 and eigen3 keys, as well as a general eigen key that points to the latest version (i.e. is currently the same as eigen3).

What could be considered, is that xylem allows for input keys to be associated with version requirements (==, <=, >= etc) and then check, if the installed or would-be installed version matches. This would solve the use case with ROS packages above, where there is a one-to-one relation between xylem key and apt package. However, it is unclear how the version is handled if a key resolves to 0 or more than 1 packages. However, the most we would offer in terms of action is upgrading an already installed package to the latest version, and informing the user if a matching version cannot be achieved by upgrading or if the version requirements are incompatible themselves (i.e. user installs foo and bar, which depend on baz>1.0 and baz<1.0 respectively). Special care needs to be taken to correctly merge multiple versioned resolutions of the same key.

Another level of support for versions in rules would be to allow the resolution rules themselves to be conditional on a version, e.g. allowing to specify that eigen would resolve to libeigen2-dev or libeigen3-dev, depending on the version. With this, the versioned key eigen==2 and eigen==3 could be resolved at the same time. Things could get really complicated and I’m not sure we want to go down that route unless there is a good concrete use case where this is beneficial.

Notes:

Improved package manager abstraction

[TODO: these are only random thoughts. transform them into a coherent and comprehensible description]

  • support stuff like custom ppa’s for apt, taps for homebrew
  • the ros-ppa should not be special in xylem
  • possibly specified on a per-rules-file basis? (identify real world use cases / needs)
  • if custom ppa’s are supported, provide tools to list the ppa’s for bunch of keys / rules sources
  • rules should never specify the ppa location, but rather have some sort of names prerequisite. this way the user could configure/overwrite the prerequisite in the config file if he e.g. has a customized mirror of that ppa or tap.
  • issue of trust for the user (auto add alternavte pm sources? query user?)
  • issue of reliability of sources for the maintainer
    • tool support to ensure ROS core packages are only using ubuntu or osrf ppa?
  • maybe the right abstraction is package manager prerequisites
    • possibly not support undoing these prerequisites
    • prerequisites should be performed before any packages is installed
    • could query user or be automatic (with explicit option) or fail with instructions to user
    • allow user to configure and also skip specific or all prerequisite checks.
    • special prerequisite is the ‘availability’, which checks if the pm is installed. This should be treated specially, because maybe the selection of used package manager should depend on which is installed (e.g. macports vs homebrew). Ability to list available package managers
    • maybe with the previous it makes sense to distinguish general prerequisites (apt is installed and possibly up-to-date) and per-key prerequisites (certain ppa is installed)
    • concrete examples: * apt: ppa installed * source installer: tools installed (gcc etc) * brew: homebrew installed, Tap tapped * pip: pip installed

Alternative resolutions

Allow for alternatives with resolutions on a specific platforms, e.g. the use can choose macports vs homebrew on OS X, or to use pip over apt for python packages on Ubuntu.

Notes:

  • multiple resolutions for one key on a specific os/version
  • how to do the right thing by default? (e.g. detect if either homebrew or macports is installed to determine the default. Maybe some people never want to fallback to macports, maybe some want to fall back to macports if a key is not defined for homebrew)
  • have preferred order of the different alternatives, customizable (at what granularity?)
  • for debian releases only apt dependencies are allowed, for stuff like homebrew we can also depend on pip / gem
  • per rules file or per key
  • xylem resolve command should list all alternatives and help to arbitrate

Random points

  • bring back the source installer
  • improve windows situation; possibly source installer? windows 8 app store :-)
  • integrate/interact with http://robotpkg.openrobots.org somehow? Check their solution for ideas for xylem.
  • continue on error option for install
  • authority on rules and versions

Terminology

[TODO: Define terms]

  • xylem key
  • key database
  • rules file
  • (backend) installer
  • package manager
  • platform –> os/version tuple
  • installer
  • installer context
  • package -> pm package
  • rules file