Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • 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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page