Public SourceMage Discussion List

["Ryan Abrams" <rabrams AT sourcemage.org>]

Hmm.. could we take a dual approach? a "sorcery" spell which does nothing
but list depends and stay sustained, and an "update_sorcery" function in
sorcery itself? As far as gaze version and such, you are write. But users
could jsut run sorcery and look. Not /as/ nice, but its there.

I dont know. It just seems like using sorcery routines to update sorcery
routines is inherently unstable, because at some point in the process, the
system is hosed on the disk, and sorcery only exists in memory. and that
leads to crap like power outages hosing systems... or 1 bug in a spell
leaving a system hosed.. etc.

-Ryan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Jennings" <nkj AT namodn.com>
To: "Ryan Abrams" <rabrams AT sourcemage.org>
Cc: "Spencer Ogden" <spencero AT mail.utexas.edu>;
<SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Still Problems


> On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 03:48:17PM -0500, Ryan Abrams wrote:
> > Whatever way we end up going with sorcery spell(s), we need to stabilize
> > this before 0.9, so that our next install iso (and 1.0) will be able to
> > upgrade itself.
>
>  I completely agree.
>
>  How about, we don't put 'sorcery' as a conflict of 'sorcery-stable' but
>  in the POST_BUILD for sorcery-stable we but in some way of removing
>  the 'sorcery' entry from /var/state/sorcery/packages ?
>
>  The sorcery entry would still have to be removed from sustained.
>
> > One thing that may be worth considering in simply making sorcery a
> > non-spell. Just make sorcery update itself manually as a special case.
It
> > would solve ALL the problems with multiple spells, versioning, etc,
because
> > we wouldnt have to work within cast's rules. It's not ideal in the
> > "everything is a spell" metaphor, but it may work better for the 1.0
> > timeline, and would stop all this update nonsense.
>
>  I don't like this as much as fixing the spell mess, because you loose the
>  ability to get information about it (ie. gaze version sorcery) etc.
>
>  Also, another more important factor is the dependencies of sorcery
>  will still have to be met, and we'd have to hack in some way to
>  make sure they are met, without having a spell to manage all that.
>
>  All in all, allot more coding work, and we only have untill the end
>  of the month.
>
> - Nick
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
>