sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items
List archive
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: PERFORCE change 24280 for review
- From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
- To: sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: PERFORCE change 24280 for review
- Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:33:26 -0800
>From my perspective, I'd rather not have a lot of new spells added just for
>some
cvs, snapshot, devel, etc. version, but instead use the PREPARE method, and if
we could agree on using this method (except where noted, such as different
dependencies, build requirements, etc.). However, we /did/ say that it was up
to the guru to chose whichever method they wanted, but that we'd prefere the
above method.
-sandalle
Quoting Hamish Greig <hgreig AT bigpond.net.au>:
> that was a seperate issue as I understood it.
> the first issue was if the change was as small as this cdrdao spell then it
> should be a PREPARE query not a seperate spell that needs extra
> maintainance,
> conflicts, provides and a knowledge of available spells.
> the second issue that you are referrring to I understood was whether sorcery
> needed to support cvs/stable version dependent spell scripts within the same
> spell.
> I had already stated I thought any restructuring or addditions in this
> respect
> should wait until post 1.0 and I had also understood there was agreement
> that
> unless the cvs version was warranted due to different DEPENDS, then it
> should
> always be integrated. Therefore I had no reason to respond, nor did anyone
> else ?
>
> I think adding PROVIDES, CONFLICTS changing DEPENDS of other spells and
> actually adding another spell to the grimoire is the less efficient method.
> A query in PREPARE and a
> "if ["$CVS" = "YES" ]; then VERSION=FOO-cvs ; else VERSION=FOO; fi"
> in DETAILS would definitely be the quickest and simplest.
> Especially if it is not a spell you will be maintaining, then it should be
> an
> addition to the original spell. Adding spells means more maintenance, more
> CONFLICTS and more PROVIDES. Rewriting spells as was discussed doesn't
> introduce any of these overheads.
> If I was wrong in my understanding of the previously raped and pillaged
> thread
> (I have just reread it, and all it's child threads) then I would actually
> like to readdress the issue( in a single thread ffs).
> Hamish
>
> ps I have cc'ed grimoire list as I actually want clarification of the
> previous
> thread.
--
PGP Key Fingerprint: FCFF 26A1 BE21 08F4 BB91 FAED 1D7B 7D74 A8EF DD61
http://search.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xA8EFDD61
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/E/IT$ d-- s++:+>: a-- C++(+++) BL++++VIS>$ P+(++) L+++ E-(---) W++ N+@ o?
K? w++++>-- O M-@ V-- PS+(+++) PE(-) Y++(+) PGP++(+) t+() 5++ X(+) R+(++)
tv(--)b++(+++) DI+@ D++(+++) G>+++ e>+++ h---(++) r++ y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
-
[SM-Grimoire] Re: PERFORCE change 24280 for review,
Hamish Greig, 01/03/2004
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: PERFORCE change 24280 for review, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 01/03/2004
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: PERFORCE change 24280 for review,
Robin Cook, 01/04/2004
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: PERFORCE change 24280 for review, Hamish Greig, 01/05/2004
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: PERFORCE change 24280 for review, Eric Sandall, 01/04/2004
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: PERFORCE change 24280 for review,
Ricardo Izquierdo, 01/04/2004
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: PERFORCE change 24280 for review, Casey Harkins, 01/04/2004
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: PERFORCE change 24280 for review,
Ricardo Izquierdo, 01/05/2004
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: PERFORCE change 24280 for review, Hamish Greig, 01/05/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.