Public SourceMage Discussion List

["Reapl Paratorn" <reapl AT reapl.net>]

Howdy,

I would hope that we don't have too much trouble fully converting over to
gcc3.2

My sysadmin is a Lunar user and when they went 1.0 recently he gave me their
install cd to look at. I had some spare time and was sick of the issues with
the 0.8.* that we have atm and wasnt using Linux for work, so I decided to
install it on the laptop to give it a go.

It is fully gcc3.2 from install down. No gcc2 installed anywhere. So there
can't be much to do for the base system. Maybe a few spells yes, but not
base system and the basic X, gnome2 stuff I have installed so far.

As for what to do with gcc2 dependant spells. Shouldnt this be exactly what
sorcery is supposed to handle in its dependancies, make them dependant on
gcc2? Maybe start up a gcc2 section for the grimoire so all of them are
handled by the same guru?

Once the new ISOs start coming out I will go back to this distro. I also
hope that we pay a bit more attention to spell dependacies than they have. I
found some ridiculous issues of gnome2 stuff that didnt have correct
dependancies, so wouldnt compile. And as of 8.2.0 that I last used, we had
some of the same issues with an assortment of spells.

Dependancies are REALLY important, especially for new users. I have almost
got to the point quite a few times of throwing away the distro cause stuff
just wouldnt compile due to missing dependancies. I know I should have put
this stuff into bugzilla, but i didnt at the time, cause I couldnt get X to
run to get a browser to go to the webpage.....and I was too lazy to write it
all down. (I never was able to get mozilla to compile in 0.8.2 btw, cant
remember the error now)

Anyhoo, that is prob more than enough rambling for now.

Just as another question, exactly how are the dependancies done?.

Say we have package A that depends on things from package B and package C.
Now if B also is dependant on C, do we list A as dependant on both B & C or
just B and let B give us C? The reason I bring this up is because, we should
never do the second, because if B changes its dependancies it might break A
without A never knowing about it.

Just one last yell from the soapbox, PLEASE DO FULL DEPENDANCIES.

Reapl

-----Original Message-----
From: sm-discuss-admin AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:sm-discuss-admin AT lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Eric Schabell
Sent: Saturday, 12 October 2002 12:17 AM
To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] For 1.0 release a question?


> On Friday October 11 2002 16:13, you wrote:
> On Friday 11 October 2002 2:53 pm, Eric Schabell wrote:
> > and gcc2 spell can also go to z-rejected.
>
> I disagree with this point - why should it go in z-rejected? There are no
> licensing issues - just keep it in devel as an optional spell that people
> can cast or not as they want without having to respond to the prompts you
> get with a rejected spell.
>
Agreed... was just thinking out loud... seems better to keep devel with all
that sort of thing and phase them out as the developers get their act
together and migrate to a modern compiler! ;-)

--
/*
 * drs. Eric Schabell
 *  web: http://www.schabell.com
 *  SourceMage: http://www.sourcemage.org
 *  Shopping: http://www.cafeshops.com/cp/store.aspx?s=sourcemage.0
 *  irc.openprojects.org (#sourcemage)
 *  nick -> erics
 */

_______________________________________________
SM-Discuss mailing list
SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss