Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Biting Bullets

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ismael Luceno <ismael.luceno AT gmail.com>
  • To: Thomas Orgis <thomas-forum AT orgis.org>
  • Cc: sm-discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Biting Bullets
  • Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:59:56 -0300

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Thomas Orgis <thomas-forum AT orgis.org> wrote:
> Am Sun, 7 Sep 2014 11:17:03 +0200
> schrieb Remko van der Vossen <wich AT yuugen.jp>:
<...>
>> 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.

+1. And we could probably automate the split to some extent... I will try
later.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page