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: Nick Jennings <nkj AT namodn.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 17:41:14 -0700
Your missing my point. xclock won't compile without X libs, neither
will xmms... etc. etc. If it's not a "gnome" app or a "kde" app it's
a "misc X app" and should it depend on XFree86?
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 04:45:11PM -0700, Andrew wrote:
> 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-Sorcery mailing list
> SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery
>
-
[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.