sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items
List archive
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case]
- From: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
- To: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org, sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case]
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:30:49 -0700
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 02:40:58PM -0700, Seth Woolley wrote:
> I thought it was "eventual" dependency. If you depended on gnome, for
> example, gnome already depends on xfree86, so you don't need to dupe it,
> because if X isn't cast, it will get cast anyways as gnome can't be
> installed without X.
>
i think thats what we decided on in the meeting, if a spell A depends
on B, and B depends on Xfree86, then you dont need to list xfree86 as
a dependancy of A, but if no such dependancy exists, then you need to
list xfree86 as a dependancy. If we look at dependancies like a directed
graph, there must always be some path from any spell that uses X to X,
regardless of the length of the path.
as a more concrete example:
unixcw (morse code tutor), depends on qt-x11
and
qt-x11 depends on xfree86
therefore i dont need to change anything with unixcw because it has
xfree86 as an inherited dependancy.
as what i think my constitute an error:
xscorch depends on gtk+
gtk+ depends on glib
glib depends on nothing
i was not aware that one could play xscorch, or use gtk+ without X.
i think this goes by unnoticed because nobody casts gtk+ from a brand
new SM box without casting xfree86 first. glib probably should depend
on xfree86.
one more example ;)
dcgui depends on xfree86 and qt-x11
and of course qt-x11 depends on xfree86
nothing is 'wrong' with this but the extra dependancy is uneccesary
im sure we all knew this already, but just to make it crystal clear.
on the case of glibc and gcc, i believe we dont need to worry since they
are part of the base system, and everything depends on that.
Andrew
-
[SM-Grimoire][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case],
Dufflebunk, 10/18/2002
-
[SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case],
Nick Jennings, 10/19/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case],
Dufflebunk, 10/19/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case],
Julian v. Bock, 10/20/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case],
Nick Jennings, 10/21/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case],
Seth Woolley, 10/21/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case],
Andrew, 10/21/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case], Nick Jennings, 10/21/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case], Andrew, 10/21/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case], Nick Jennings, 10/21/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case], Andrew, 10/21/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case], Nick Jennings, 10/21/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case], Robin, 10/22/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case],
Andrew, 10/21/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case],
Seth Woolley, 10/21/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case],
Nick Jennings, 10/21/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case], Arwed von Merkatz, 10/22/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case],
Julian v. Bock, 10/20/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case],
Dufflebunk, 10/19/2002
-
[SM-Grimoire]Re: [SM-Sorcery][Fwd: xfree86 as a special case],
Nick Jennings, 10/19/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.