sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
[SM-Discuss] explicit agreement to update a huge spell
- From: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergeyli AT pisem.net>
- To: Source Mage - Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: [SM-Discuss] explicit agreement to update a huge spell
- Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 14:35:33 -0500
I've been thinking about the situation where updates to glibc, gcc, and other huge spells break too many bones. My idea is to introduce an extra flag, similar to "don't collect docs" or "don't archive the spell", which would mean "don't update without explicit agreement from the admin". Initialli, all "Solo" spells will have to be marked as such. So, every time the admin does "sorcery system-update" and, for instance, gcc needs an recompile, s/he would be asked if it's OK to do that. Holding the spall is not working because nobody cares to actually go and hold the spells that are critical, partially because not everyone knows what is s/he supposed to be holding. Mozilla could use the same "explicit update consent" because it's just too damn big and takes forever to compile, so does OpenOffice and Javs SDK.
Or this could be an option to sorcery, or just let the admin know that the update's here and whenever s/he is ready please use such and such command to update it (I mean, print "cast -c glibc" out and let the person think).
Which, BTW, brings us to the discussion of interactive/non-interactive option for sorcery/cast/etc, but that's an entirely different story...
Ideas?
Sergey.
-
[SM-Discuss] explicit agreement to update a huge spell,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 01/05/2003
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] explicit agreement to update a huge spell,
Dufflebunk, 01/05/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] explicit agreement to update a huge spell, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 01/05/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.