Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Thomas Orgis <thomas-forum AT orgis.org>]

Am Sun, 7 Sep 2014 11:17:03 +0200
schrieb Remko van der Vossen <wich AT yuugen.jp>: 

> > I'd like to request that everyone who opens a devel branch create a bug 

> While I agree with the sentiment I'm not sure how much it's going to
> help us now.

+1 ... the existing branches should just get dealt with. For new ones,
we need some structure to at least settle questions like "What branch
owners?".

> The other alternative is what
> we did with for instance ruby, name all different spell versions of the
> package "$package-whatever" and make the "$package" spell a selector for
> the other ones.

I think I'd prefer that as a rule. I'd go further and actually _ban_
multiversion spell that mess up DETAILS. Does DETAILS really need to be
a turing-complete program? There might be the odd spell (glibc-style)
that needs to muck around with the architecture and some context to
figure out the proper source files ... but even then, I really would
like version switches to be gone from individual DETAILS. Having

foo-1
foo-2
foo-3

as separate single-version spells and one

foo

to depend on one of the above would be much more clear. I figure that
would come close to actually having multi-version support in sorcery,
which we denied over the years but practiced in crafted DETAILS files.

There would still be the complication that sometimes foo-1 can
coexist with foo-2 and sometimes they'll conflict. Would be nice to
indicate that in the query for foo. Such an approach would also nicely
fit llvm, which is a separate beast in each version and may be needed
to be kept around in multiple ones.

Anyhow, that, too, ist stuff for the future. For _now_ I gather that we
should kill off mesalib-1x and move that spell to mesalib.


Alrighty then,

Thomas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature