sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: Seth Woolley <seth AT tautology.org>
- To: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems
- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 18:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
I agree with Ryan.
Wouldn't this problem affect all latest snapshot-style updating spells
(like mozilla-nightly). In that case, I think the problem should be
fixed in sorcery and the spell shouldn't be doing some special magic.
Can't you set VERSION=spell in DETAILS and then have sorcery set all the
versions in the install log after it figures it out from a file called
VERSION in the root directory of the spell's .tar.bz2 file containing
just "2002090418" or "1.1.21"?
Is there some way to get a general solution?
Why do you need a system-wide variable for it? Sounds a lot like what
Ryan proposes below, except, it should be more general than just to the
sorcery spell, and it would be a solution in sorcery. I don't like
system-wide variables when they aren't needed. Sometimes they may be
needed, but I don't see one being needed here, if sorcery can be fixed.
Seth
P.S. I'm new to all this, so excuse any lapses of coherency if I missed
something obvious -- and please point them out to me when they happen.
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Ryan Abrams wrote:
> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:10:51 -0500
> From: Ryan Abrams <rabrams AT sourcemage.org>
> To: Nick Jennings <nkj AT namodn.com>
> Cc: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems
>
> I would prefer that instead of fix the symptom, we fix the problem.
>
> The problem is that the spell is not getting the version variable. So
> maybe we make that a special case system wide variable, configurable in
> sorcery, that the sorcery spell sets if it isnt already set.
>
> A while back there was a discussion about systemwide variables settable
> by spells. It was stated that they were unneeded because of triggers
> and such. This is a situation where it is needed. If there is another
> way to do it, please do. Otherwise, we need to find a solution in
> sorcery.
>
> I don't want to go back to split sorcery spells. It doesn't make sense
> to do it that way.
>
> -Ryan
-
[SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems,
Nick Jennings, 09/04/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems, Seth Woolley, 09/04/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems,
Ryan Abrams, 09/04/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems, Seth Woolley, 09/04/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems, Nick Jennings, 09/05/2002
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems,
Nathan Doss, 09/04/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems,
Nick Jennings, 09/05/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems,
Dufflebunk, 09/05/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems, Nick Jennings, 09/05/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems,
Dufflebunk, 09/05/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems,
Nick Jennings, 09/05/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.