sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergey AT optimaltec.com>
- To: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
- Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:33:51 -0400
Eric Sandall wrote:I disagree. Having xyz and xyz-devel actually pushes /more/ complexity on users [and on us too]. On users: they have to make a decision about something they have no idea in each and every case, they may install xyz and xyz-devel together and bring havoc, they may change their mind. On us: we'll have to check all DEPENDS, introduce more `requires' and `provides' for every other spell, and generally mess the grimoires beyond comprehension. Ideal as I see it is when a spell actually offers a choice in CONFIGURE as to whether the user wants stable or unstable version. Moreover, sorcery should have a default setting for this so that users don't have to pick everything manually. Which brings us (almost) to what we have now: devel and stable grimoires, but not quite. The problem of two grimoires is that spells have the same names in both, so whichever grimoire is first in the list wins. To change that, we have to create a single grimoire and provide an option of stable/unstable in one and the same grimoire.Geoffrey Derber said: I've started an idea of implementing this with the Horde group of spells, horde, imp, turba, kronolith. It actually works for thew, believe it or not, but the bug in installation that I'm meaning to resolve prevents the spell from being used. So, if somebody's willing to look over these spells and make a suggestion as to whether the solution can be abstracted and made a part of sorcery, I'll be happy to explain the algorithm in spells. Most of the time, spells would only need two DETAILS files, and sorcery would choose one or the other. How's that? Sergey. |
-
[SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Geoffrey Derber, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Jeremy Kolb, 07/10/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Geoffrey Derber, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Eric Sandall, 07/10/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Geoffrey Derber, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Geoffrey Derber, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Hamish Greig, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Jason Flatt, 07/11/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Hamish Greig, 07/11/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Duane Malcolm, 07/11/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Hamish Greig, 07/11/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Duane Malcolm, 07/12/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Hamish Greig, 07/12/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Eric Schabell, 07/12/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Jason Flatt, 07/11/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Hamish Greig, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Geoffrey Derber, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Jeremy Kolb, 07/10/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.