Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] How to handle multi-version spells

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] How to handle multi-version spells
  • Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 17:36:35 +0200

On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 10:08:00AM -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> On May 08, Arwed von Merkatz [v.merkatz AT gmx.net] wrote:
> > On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:12:27PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> > > On May 07, Arwed von Merkatz [v.merkatz AT gmx.net] wrote:
> > > > Now for the actual versioned spell. The essential differences between
> > > > the spells we currently have:
> > > > - some spells default to stable version, some to cvs version
> > > ...
> > > > What I'd like to see:
> > > > - spell asks which version to use, always defaulting to the stable
> > > > version
> > >
> > > I agree when the options are just "stable release" and "daily snapshot",
> > > but what about spells with active stable, devel/beta, and cvs branches?
> > > In
> > > those cases the devel branch can at times pass the stable branch in
> > > stability as well as features, and we don't necessarily do our users
> > > favors
> > > by just following what can be arbitrary version schemes.
> >
> > Then the user wanting those features can choose the devel version and
> > be done with it. No spell should default to cvs/svn (unless that's the
> > only way to get it of course) because we can't give _any_ guarantees
> > that those trees will build/be compatible with other stuff.
>
> I'm not talking about a CVS version, I'm talking about a released devel
> version, such as mutt 1.5.9. It is *more* compatible with other stuff than
> the "stable" 1.4.x branch because 1.4.x is so old (1.4.x tries to require
> older auto tools than we even ship right now, but our build fudges around
> calling them the way that would error out). There's several distros that
> only ship mutt 1.5.x and left 1.4.x in the dirt some time ago. Yes, this
> is the mutt dev's fault for taking so long to get around to cutting 1.6,
> but this is exactly what I mean by "arbitrary version schemes".

I still don't see why the devel version should be the default. I've been
using mutt 1.4 for ages and don't have any problems with it.
A user who wants to use 1.5 can still choose it.

--
Arwed v. Merkatz Source Mage GNU/Linux developer
http://www.sourcemage.org




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page