sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells
- Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 09:44:55 -0700
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 08:56:31AM +0500, Alexander Tsamutali wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> > You didnt answer the question. Instead you picked a broader premise and
> > re-framed the question within that (ignoring all other points and
> > counterpoints made previously). Nice try though. Care to try again?
> >
> > Why does the force_depends version logic have to be in *sorcery*.
>
> Sorry, i think you misunderstood me. This small chunk of code with
> force_depends must live at the grimoire level. But if you decide that we
> need some more generic solution, it goes into sorcery.
Its not really me deciding, its what the best solution is based on
technical merit and group consensus. My thoughts can carry a lot of
weight in that, but it is the group that decides in the end.
To be honest, I think the solution we have now is more general and
flexible than one living entirely in sorcery. It isnt that sorcery
isn't doing anything to support these problems, it is, but the api is
at a lower level than what users expect when they think of a
"multi-version" feature.
Perhaps a useful way to think of it is how the kernel works, you
dont put gnome (for example) directly in the kernel, you put stuff in
the kernel to help gnome work better.
>
> > That breaks one of the conditions mentioned in the currently utilized
> > policy. Which is that all versions presented within the spell must work
> > as dependencies. If they dont the spell must be split. So this is not
> > a realistic example.
>
> This condition is a limitation. I dont think that splitting spells with
> different versions is a good thing.
> sub_depends was great generic solution, solved some problems. IMHO
> version_depends is equally imortant.
Can you provide an example of when this limitation has prevented
something, and perhaps how common or severe this example is in the grand
scheme of things? How are multi-version spells (as you've described them)
different from split spells aside from a conceptual one?
In split spells theres a separate directory containing files for each of
the two spells. In multi-version spells, as has been proposed, the spell
directory has two sub-directories with spell files in them for the two
variants. When someone can use either, in the first case they use a
provider (eg ffmpeg/ffmpeg-svn) and the user can pick which spell they
want. In the second case theres some other mechanism where the user,
again, can pick which which spell they want. Im really not seeing much
difference here, other than a conceptual one. Theres no clear advantage
to changing how things are done.
-Andrew
--
_________________________________________________________________________
| Andrew D. Stitt | acedit at armory.com | astitt at sourcemage.org |
| irc: afrayedknot | Sorcery Team Lead | ftp://t.armory.com/ |
| 1024D/D39B096C | 76E4 728A 04EE 62B2 A09A 96D7 4D9E 239B D39B 096C |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells
, (continued)
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells,
Andrew, 10/07/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells, Alexander Tsamutali, 10/07/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells, Flavien Bridault, 10/07/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells, Andrew, 10/07/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells, Andraž "ruskie" Levstik, 10/07/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells, Jeremy Blosser, 10/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells,
Andrew, 10/07/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells, Andrew, 10/07/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells, Alexander Tsamutali, 10/07/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells, Andrew, 10/07/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells, Alexander Tsamutali, 10/07/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells, Andrew, 10/08/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells, Andraž "ruskie" Levstik, 10/07/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells,
Andraž "ruskie" Levstik, 10/08/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells,
Jaka Kranjc, 10/09/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells,
Eric Sandall, 10/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells,
Jaka Kranjc, 10/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells,
Eric Sandall, 10/10/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells, Andrew, 10/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells,
Eric Sandall, 10/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells,
Jaka Kranjc, 10/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells,
Eric Sandall, 10/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells,
Jaka Kranjc, 10/09/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.