Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-grimoire - Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend

sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Robin Cook <rcook AT wyrms.net>
  • To: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
  • Cc: sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend
  • Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:05:59 -0000

I have never changed it because until the policy changes I was following
it. Though we are still having depenencies problems. I am getting bug
reports of spell x needs y in it's depends and it is there or in the
depends of one of it's depends.

CuZnDragon
Robin Cook

On Sun, 2003-06-29 at 15:41, Eric Sandall wrote:
> Sergey A. Lipnevich said:
> > Well, I think that's the point of Eric's initial post: spells are
> > stable, we can bring explicit dependencies on them back into DEPENDS.
> <snip>
>
> Correct. When I said explicit, I meant that if a depends of that package
> didn't have some dependency down the road on what it needs, that put it in
> the package. This way no cast will ever fail for a lack of a certain
> package installed, otherwise this brings us back to the rpm days, where
> you try to install something and it say, "Hey, I can't install because you
> still haven't installed package X, now you go do it while I sit here and
> waste my numerous cycles."
>
> So, in the case of xdvi, it should have 'depends xfree86' in it, same
> with gtk+2, but then packages which depend on gtk+2 and xfree86 will only
> need to have 'depends gtk+2'.
>
> -sandalle





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page