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 16:45:11 -0700
that sounds like a job for
optional_depends
right?
for example MPlayer has integration with gnome (i think), but its an
optional dependancy. so it works anyways.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 04:51:36PM -0700, Nick Jennings wrote:
> Yes, I understand the chain of dependencies, and why not every spell
> needs to depend on X if they are an X app. The problem lies in when
> some user doesn't want to use a window manager, but want's to compile
> an X app.
>
> You don't need GNOME or KDE (or any other window manager) to compile
> xclock, or even xmms (i think)... What about this instances?
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 03:30:49PM -0700, Andrew wrote:
> > 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-Sorcery mailing list
> > SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery
> >
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Grimoire mailing list
> SM-Grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-grimoire
-
[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.