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 14:24:55 -0500
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 01:06:19PM -0500, Ryan Abrams wrote:
> > 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.
>
> This is pretty ugly, you must admit. So what is VERSION set to in the
> DETAILS file?
Ugly like dog. VERSION in the details file is set to whatever the hell they
want, if they are changing it later.
In fact, lets leave it at this:
1) Its already doable via direct VERSION manipulation by a spellwriter.
2) We dont like it, so lets not encourage it with a function.
In other words, lets not address this particular issue in sorcery 1.0.
> > 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.
>
> This is really not OK. Even for the sorcery spell. Some people dial-up,
> some peopl have 486 machines. Even the sorcery install would be a
> PITA for these people.
>
> Hell the sorcery spell already takes a surprisingly long time for some
> reason, I am still trying to determine why. On my PII 566mhz w/ 64mb RAM
> the spell takes a good few minutes to finish casting. (And thats not
> even downloading).
The reason the sorcery spell takes a long time is because it is running the
version upgrade code in the ./install file /every/ time. Which means it is
downloading the entire grimoire, unzipping it, etc.
This started happening somewhere around the time that the spell changed and
all the DEBUG purging took place.. something was removed from ./install that
shouldnt have been, or the new versions no longer work with the version
checking string. I dont know.
I thought I had fixed this in cvs. maybe not, if you are still getting it.
Try pulling the cvs and just running the ./install script. see if that
works. if so, its a spell bug. :-/
> > the freeze isnt until the 0.9 release, which is the 29th, correct?
>
> Correct, however I'd like to avoid switching things on the users as
> much as possible. We've got to have something working for 0.8.1, and
> sorcery-stable/devel is going to be it if nothing else can address these
> inherent problems.
Lets switch configure and details, so that things like k18n can work. We
will leave support for things that require versioning out at the moment
(yes, this means go with split sorcery spells and split mozilla spells). I
believe it's possible to add it, but I would rather compromise and get 1 of
the problems solved and tested than argue over and implement a larger change
that could end up breaking more than it fixes.
Sound fair?
I can get the patch for that to you by probably 5 or 6pm PST, which will
more than make it into the tarball tonight.
-Ryan
-
[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.