Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 03:49:22 +0400
Vlad Glagolev <stealth AT sourcemage.org> wrote:

> We have a lot of annoying things here.
> 
> First of all: spaces.
> 
> Things like:
> 
> --
> optional_depends very-long-spell-name-or-not  \
>                  "--enable-foo"               \
>                  "--disable-foo"              \
>                  "for foo feature"            &&
> --
> 
> are damn useless, and it's hard to fix it every time, when some more
> dependencies were added, or description of the dependency, and so on.
> It's very hard/time-consuming to go through the jungles of spaces
> while editing the spell's deps or add new ones.
> 
> I'd offer to just remove (and don't add) unneeded spaces here:
> 
> -
> optional_depends spell \
>                  "--with-feature" \
>                  "--without-feature" \
>                  "for some kind of feature support" &&

I would agree with this, but would like to continue to use two spaces
between each word/operator. Also note that "spell" should be quoted,
according to our current standard, though
http://www.sourcemage.org/DEPENDS doesn't seem to be consistent about
this and mostly (but not always) only does so for optional_depends.

e.g.

optional_depends  "spell"  \
                  "--with-feature"  \
                  "--without-feature"  \
                  "for ultimate access to everything"  &&

> --
> 
> Next, newlines.
> 
> --
> depends xproto &&
> depends fontconfig &&
> depends libx11
> --
> 
> is ok, but I think, depends block should be separated from
> optional_depends block by new line, and all optional_depends blocks
> should be separated by new line from each other.

I agree, and I thought this was how it was documented to being done,
but looking at http://www.sourcemage.org/DEPENDS shows otherwise. I
believe the current wiki may have mangled some of the formatting (since
the "\" and "&&" no longer line-up, but have lots of extra spacing).

> 
> Also:
> 
> --
> optional_depends spell \
>                  "--with-foo" \
>                  "--without-foo" \
>                  "for foo support" &&
> --
> 
> is ok, like this:
> 
> --
> optional_depends spell \
>                  "--with-foo" "-without-foo" \
>                  "for foo support" &&

I disagree, except in the case where there are *no* --with/--without
flags. Keeping them separate makes it clearer which is the enable and
which the disable, IMO.

> --
> 
> and like this:
> 
> --
> optional_depends spell "" "" "some pythonic spell with no actual
> configure flags" --

I belive this should be okay for the non-flagged optional dependencies,
so long as the entirety is <80 columns.

-sandalle

-- 
Eric Sandall                     |  Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61  |  http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/          |  http://counter.li.org/  #196285

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature