Public SourceMage Discussion List

["Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>]

On Apr 22, seth AT swoolley.homeip.net [seth AT swoolley.homeip.net] wrote:
> I've done a first round through the grimoire and a lot of spells were 
> skipped due to brokenness, so I expect a re-run will find even more 
> issues.  Through the weekend I will triage the rest of the bugs filed, 
> but I have one question to ask of everybody:
> 
> Should the spells that depend on z-rejected spells be moved until they 
> can have that restriction lifted?

I don't think so, people may be doing various things with them on their own
machines.

> There are spells that depend on a z-rejected spell that aren't rejected 
> because they could conceivably be run on code that wasn't rejected if we 
> had a spell for it and got it to work with it.

Our grimoires aren't the only ways people install things.

> I'm talking mostly about anything we have that's java-based.  I'm
> inclined just to say that java should be its own grimoire (sequestered)
> until we can get the spells to actually build/run in gcj or some other
> java compiler/runtime.  Thus they're provisionally rejected, in a way
> since they can't be built with our system without a rejected spell.

I don't really get the trend to make "sequestered" grimoires for various
groups of spells.  Ok, some people don't want games on their system, so
maybe that one makes sense (though some of the choices for what does and
doesn't go in games are iffy).  But if it's just a matter of large spells
people don't want, why don't we have separate perl/gnome/kde/etc.
grimoires?  The answer is probably that it's hard enough for us to track
and maintain already.

Moving java spells out because they cause a bit of a headache now feels
like trying to put them out of sight and out of mind, and I don't think
that's the way to get them fixed.

Attachment: pgpzI_g0RZuCh.pgp
Description: PGP signature