Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Geoffrey Derber <Geoffrey.Derber AT Trinity.edu>]

Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
> Eric Sandall wrote:
>
> > Geoffrey Derber said:
> >  
> >
> > > Kind of a request for the future.
> > >
> > > Can we move towards having all spells be the latest STABLE release, and
> > > for devel releases, have second copy of the spell '-devel' on the end.
> > >
> > > This might require that dependencies be taken care of more like the
> > > requires method.  But I think it may be better in the end.
> > >
> > > This would eliminate the beta mozilla versions, and the beta xfree86,
> > > several others.  But I really think unless the person wants to use a
> > > beta version, we should not try to force it on them w/ an update.  Have
> > > them choose the beta / development branch specifically.  Then it is the
> > > end users choice rather than, 'oh we want to use the latest devel
> > > version, tough luck if you want to use an older version'
> > >
> > > Another reason for doing it this way, I'd like to see us return if
> > > possible to a point where people can safely update with a cron job and
> > > know what they would be getting.
> > >
> > > Geoff
> > >    
> >
> > This is how it SHOULD be anyways.  Note that we do have some <spell>-devel
> > spells in sections (gimp-devel, for example).  However, sometimes we
> > cannot help it for when the author removes all prior versions and/or the
> > older versions do not work with the version of X that we have in the
> > grimoire.
> >
> > In general, though, if we can use the 'stable' release, please do, and if
> > you want to have the spell at a 'devel/beta' release, create a new spell
> > with '-devel' or '-beta' (preferably the former).
> >
> > -sandalle
> >
> >  
> 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.
> 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.

That almost sounds like it's shifting the complex part around a bit. 
Rather than having multiple simple spells, we would have more complex 
single spells.

If the spell is set up right, users would not have both the -devel spell 
and the stable installed, the CONFLICTS file.  I also don't see using 
requires really messing up the grimoire much.  I think this is a viable 
option.

In the end though, my main point was to try and give user the option to 
install the devel version, without forcing it on them.

Geoff