sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergeyli AT pisem.net>
- To: eric AT sandall.us
- Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] pango
- Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:22:39 -0500
This is cool, I agree with treating cdrtools this way, because it's up to the user which one s/he wants. In case of pango, I guess we can provide an extra logic, like those who need pango1 should depend on it, and those requiring pango2 (1.2 really) can do just that. But I also agree with Robin that it's a temporary fix and pango 1.0 will not be needed at all very soon.
Eric Sandall wrote:
Dufflebunk said:
Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting removing the option of using
either. I was suggesting putting one version or the other in DETAILS, so
that the update spell checker script wil work properly for 1/2 the
people. But most certainly leave the ability to have either version.
As an alternate, we could make pango a meta spell and make 2 other
spells, one for each version.
I'd rather we not fill our grimoire with meta-spells. We should instead
use the provides/require functionality of sorcery. I'm thinking of
changing the cdrtools meta-spell into the cdrutils (the actual cdrtools),
and having both dvdrtools and cdrtools (the old cdrutils) have 'provides
cdwrite' (cdwrite is from the top of my head, any better suggestions are
welcome ;)) and updating the wiki page for this: http://wiki.sourcemage.org/index.php?page=GenericDependences.
This may be a good method for pango, change them to be pango1 and pango2
(for GNOME1 and GNOME2, respectively), then have them provide 'pango', and
change all spells which depend on pango to instead say 'requires' (on this
note, is there an optional_require?).
Thoughts?
-One of Four
a.k.a. sandalle
-
[SM-Discuss] pango,
Treeve Jelbert, 12/30/2002
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] pango,
Robin Cook, 12/30/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] pango,
Dufflebunk, 12/30/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] pango,
Eric Sandall, 12/30/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] pango,
Dufflebunk, 12/30/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] pango,
Eric Sandall, 12/30/2002
-
Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [SM-Discuss] pango, Robin Cook, 12/30/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] pango, Eric Sandall, 12/30/2002
-
Message not available
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] pango,
Eric Sandall, 12/30/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] pango, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 12/30/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] pango,
Dufflebunk, 12/30/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] pango,
Eric Sandall, 12/30/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] pango,
Dufflebunk, 12/30/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] pango, Eric Sandall, 12/30/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.