[SM-Commit] GIT changes to master grimoire by Arjan Bouter (63d4188c17032e168901f4a32cccee9ef733635c)
abouter at sourcemage.org
Wed Sep 17 16:54:48 EDT 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:45:07 -0400
flux <flux at sourcemage.org> wrote:
> Arjan Bouter (abouter at sourcemage.org) wrote [08.09.17 16:41]:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:12:29 +0200
> > Jaka Kranjc <smgl at lynxlynx.info> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 17 of September 2008 22:09:23 Arjan Bouter wrote:
> > > > If you build X with libxp+printproto and wish to remove it later, then
> > > > you'll need to remove both libxp+printproto and recast most of X.
> > > >
> > > > It's not that different from other dependency chains really. scenario 2
> > > > will fail for most dependency chains because of leftover spells (aliens)
> > > > still being installed.
> > > I don't know any other example - do you?
> > >
> > > --
> > > We cannot command nature except by obeying her. --Sir Francis Bacon
> > > Have a sourcerous day! www.sourcemage.org
> > try to dispel cups after you've build a box enabling the optional_depends on
> > it everywhere you can :)
> > or dispel a video codec while a couple of players have enabled optional_depends
> > on it.
> > or remove cyrus-sasl when you've build your daemons against it.
> > all of the above examples result in broken applications, which is not that
> > different from having the same happen a step down the dependency chain.
> > Arjan
> I know there is a sorcery call to rebuild all the pam-related
> applications when there is a change related to pam. How difficult would
> it be to abstract that to handle arbitrary spells/dependencies, and add
> a new function to rebuild down the dependency tree? It seems to me like
> this would be the logical way to proceed for handling cases like these,
> but I defer to Jaka who is far more knowledgeable and experienced than I
there are command options to do that, but iirc they blindly cast the whole
chain (up or down). a check_self could be an option, but the amount of spells
that needs to be checked can rise quite quickly.
It's not realistic for each spell you dispel.
On the other hand, we do assume the SA knows what he's doing when casting
spells, why can't we assume he knows what he's doing when using dispel?
And there's always cleanse ;)
Source Mage GNU/Linux developer,
Registered as user #310617 with the Linux Counter,
GnuPG Key 79D4B14E = 94AD 3FD1 E259 67ED 632E 2B06 CFBE 1154 79D4 B14E
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the SM-Commit