sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such

From: Benoit PAPILLAULT <benoit.papillault AT sourcemage.org>
To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:33:17 +0200

Seth Alan Woolley a écrit :

The list below is more accurate, as the perl-deprecateds will be deleted and didn't have history entries put on them when they were made deprecated.

Maybe sorcery should assume a spell with INSTALL in it is build api 2?
Or we could just fix these spells...

Fixing spell is easier IMO and it's better that spells work as they should do and as we have documented, instead of adding a new (and useless) feature to sorcery.

Benoit PAPILLAULT, ISO guru

Reference (where BUILD_API should be documented):
http://wiki.sourcemage.org/index.php?page=DETAILS

[SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such, Seth Alan Woolley, 04/20/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such, Seth Alan Woolley, 04/20/2005
  - Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such, Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/20/2005
    - Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such, Flavien Bridault, 04/20/2005
      - Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such, Andrew, 04/20/2005
        
        Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such, Seth Alan Woolley, 04/20/2005
  - Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such, Eric Sandall, 04/20/2005
    - Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such, Arwed von Merkatz, 04/20/2005
    - Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such, Seth Alan Woolley, 04/20/2005