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: "Ricardo Izquierdo" <odracir_redwolf AT linuxmail.org>
- To: sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: PERFORCE change 24280 for review
- Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:47:49 +0800
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:33:26 -0800
To: sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: PERFORCE change 24280 for review
> >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
As always, I think and suggest, that a pole will be the best thing to solve
the issue.
Ricardo
> 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 mailing list
> SM-Grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-grimoire
--
______________________________________________
Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org
This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.
Powered by Outblaze
-
[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.