Public SourceMage Discussion List

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

This is mostly what I propose, but instead of duplicating the whole of
sorcery, why not just have a single script that does nothing but download
and install the chosen branch of sorcery?

That way if all sorts of hell breaks loose, people just run that script.
Heck, we could have that script be called from the spell. :)

-Ryan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Evraire" <evraire AT tuwg.com>
To: "Ryan Abrams" <rabrams AT sourcemage.org>
Cc: "Nick Jennings" <nkj AT namodn.com>; "Spencer Ogden"
<spencero AT mail.utexas.edu>; <SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Still Problems


> Stand by as I make an ass of myself seeing as I don't know much about how
> sorcery works but, here goes...
>
> When updating sorcery, could we somehow make a local copy of sorcery and
> then run the copy, wipe out the original, download and install the new
> version (maybe verify it's integrity), then wipe out the old copy?
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Ryan Abrams wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SM-Discuss mailing list
> > SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
> >
> >
> >
>