sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items
List archive
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in sorcery
- From: "Ryan Abrams" <rabrams AT sourcemage.org>
- To: "Nick Jennings" <nkj AT namodn.com>
- Cc: "Nathan Doss" <ndoss AT mtlaurel.org>, <sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org>, <sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in sorcery
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:06:19 -0500
The whole point of this is nothing to do with updating the DETAILS file. It
has to do with removing all the spellname-branch spells that clutter our
grimoire. If I want mozilla, I should be able to just cast mozilla, and be
prompted if I want to go with latest version, latest stable, etc. If I cast
k18n, it should be able to prompt me as to which internationalization pack i
want to install. The fact that sorcery can't do these things is what I am
addressing.
As far as versioning, all that needs to happen is for the spellwriter to
override VERSION in a custom POST_BUILD. I am not sure if POST_BUILD is in a
subshell or not. If it is, i will provide a function to cheat it or
something. That way the version written to the install logs and such can be
determined by the spell.
To address knowing if it has been updated... Thats the tricky part. One
option would be to record the branch, and offer multiple versions in
DETAILS.. not sure on that though. To be honest, that is a challenging part,
and may actually have to wait. The only way I know to do it would be to just
leave the spell w/ a short LIFESPAN. For something small like a sorcery
spell, that would work. For something big like mozilla it wouldnt. For
something version unrelated like k18n, its irrellevant.
Basically, CONFIGURE before DETAILS allows a bunch of stuff to work that
there currently is no good way to do. But it doesn't solve all the
shortcomings of sorcery (obviously). I still think it's worthwhile.
No way any of this will be ready and tested by 4pm PST today. Ready,
possibly. Tested enough, no way. But thats ok.. the freeze isnt until the
0.9 release, which is the 29th, correct?
-Ryan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Jennings" <nkj AT namodn.com>
To: "Ryan Abrams" <rabrams AT sourcemage.org>
Cc: "Nathan Doss" <ndoss AT mtlaurel.org>; <sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
<sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in
sorcery
> What about the spell knowing when it needs to update or not. I understand
> for devel, this will be accomplished with a LIFESPAN tag. However for
> stable I don't see how this can be done. Since no "update" will be
> detected (the whole point is not to have to update the DETAILS file
> right?)...
>
> Also, how about versioning within the branch you have installed? Is
> gaze going to have a new functionality to see which branch an installed
> spell is on?
>
> Is this going to be ready before 4pm Pacific Time today?
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 07:35:51AM -0500, Ryan Abrams wrote:
> > Dufflebunk suggested something similar, and I am fine with doing that
> > if it lessens the impact. The one thing we would have to do then is
> > have sorcery use two different config storage files, as sorcery
> > routinely trashes the DEPENDS_CONFIG/SPELL file during CONFIGURE. I
> > wouldnt want to determine when and where that happens... the workaround
> > would be like a META_CONFIG/SPELL file or something. (or maybe
> > DEPENDS_CONFIG/SPELL.meta)
> >
> > The other thing about that is that we then essentially have two CONFIG
> > files. Which is pretty odd design.
> >
> > I think just flipping the order is cleaner, assuming that there are no
> > weird hacks in spell CONFIGURE files that rely on DETAILS values to
> > already be set. That's one of the reasons I put this out here on the
> > list... to see if any guru's can find any places where this would break
> > stuff.
> >
> > -Ryan
> >
> >
> > On Monday, September 9, 2002, at 11:22 PM, Nathan Doss wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Ryan wrote:
> > >> I am writing to ask about something I think may add a lot of
> > >> flexibility to spellwriting. Its a rather big change in cast.
> > >>
> > >> Lets run CONFIGURE /before/ running DETAILS.
> > >>
> > >> [deleted]
> > >>
> > >> In any case, this is a big change design wise (though small
> > >> code-wise)
> > >
> > > What about creating a new METACONFIGURE file (needs a better name)
> > > that gets sourced before running DETAILS. This would be a small
> > > change design-wise (all current spells would continue to work as is)
> > > and a small change code-wise (no different than changing the order
> > > of running CONFIGURE/DETAILS).
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nathan Doss ndoss AT mtlaurel.org
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > SM-Grimoire mailing list
> > > SM-Grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-grimoire
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SM-Sorcery mailing list
> > SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery
> >
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Sorcery mailing list
> SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery
>
-
[SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in sorcery,
Nathan Doss, 09/10/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in sorcery,
Ryan Abrams, 09/10/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in sorcery,
Nick Jennings, 09/10/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in sorcery,
Ryan Abrams, 09/10/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in sorcery,
Nick Jennings, 09/10/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in sorcery, Ryan Abrams, 09/10/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in sorcery,
Aaron Brice, 09/11/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in sorcery, Dufflebunk, 09/12/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in sorcery, Dufflebunk, 09/12/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in sorcery,
Nick Jennings, 09/10/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in sorcery,
Ryan Abrams, 09/10/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in sorcery,
Nick Jennings, 09/10/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery]RFC: Somewhat major change in sorcery,
Ryan Abrams, 09/10/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.