sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: "Andraž \"ruskie\" Levstik" <ruskie AT mages.ath.cx>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells
- Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 22:18:11 +0200
Just a summary of all the stuff that's currently circling around and
trying to find a solution to finnaly finish off this thread ;)
Arwed von Merkatz wrote :
> I think our current solutions to handle providing multiple versions of
> the same package are enough. For spells that don't break the dependency
> chain with any version, the one described in [1] works fine. This is the
> official policy by the way, despite it being in the wiki.
So this is resolved I take it.
> The only real issue I can see with the current solutions is that they're
> not immediately obvious to the user. So what would make sense imho would
> be a way to query for versions. An ad-hoc solution would be to have a
> variable in DETAILS that says what versions there are, including
> alternate spells if there are any. I'm not proposing that we do that,
> it's just to show that there are other ways to handle this than adding
> some "native" multi-version support to sorcery.
>
OK so idea here would be:
add a VERSIONS field into DETAILS that lists all available versions of a
spell and that sorcery would display first and only then drop back to
VERSION if it's missing
I think this would satisfy a lot of people and imho it is a usability
feature.
> About forcing recompiles of dependencies when the version isn't recent
> enough, I like the idea of having some function to specify that in
> spells. I don't think we should make it policy that this should always
> be used, usually the assumption is that a system is updated as a whole.
> I'm not sure where we should draw the line with that, so for now I'd say
> it's up to the developers until someone has a good idea about a policy
> that we can all agree to.
> Technically such a function should take a regexp or something similar,
> as comparing version strings is a very complicated matter that's not
> really solvable. A regexp can be adjusted to work for the versioning
> system the spell in question uses.
>
Hmm should we be using bash3 feature [[ foo ~= someregex ]] or go with a
grep based solution here?
Other than that I think this solves the other end of this thread.
Comments? Flames?
--
Andraž "ruskie" Levstik
Source Mage GNU/Linux Games grimoire guru
Geek/Hacker/Tinker
Hacker FAQ: http://www.plethora.net/%7eseebs/faqs/hacker.html
Be sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth.
Key id = A7A9E461
Key fingerprint = 757E C16B F5B7 DC27 B003 CCED CF95 3A77 A7A9 E461
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells
, (continued)
- 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, 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.