Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-sorcery - Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems

sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Nathan Doss" <ndoss AT mtlaurel.org>
  • To: Seth Woolley <seth AT tautology.org>, sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems
  • Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:15:25 -0400

I agree with both Seth and Ryan for the most part. Here are my
thoughts, some of which mirror Seth's and Ryan's comments ...

* I think we should stay with one spell and make that work rather than
trying another approach (again).

* Ryan & I were talking in irc and he mentioned that he thought the
sorcery script should be as simple as possible with the spell
basically being something that downloads the tarball and calls the
install script. I agree with this.

* I don't think we want to support explicit versions of sorcery in the
spell. I think "devel" and "stable" are good, at least for the time
being. I think it's almost right the way it is: if you choose
"devel", you get the latest devel tarball, if you choose stable, you
get the latest stable tarball.

* I think VERSION="devel" and VERSION="stable" are good enough and
would solve the problem nick mentioned. I don't think we want to
support old versions of "stable" or "devel". If someone has a
problem, we make them update to the latest stable or latest devel.
I don't think we should have actual version numbers for stable or
devel. This doesn't mean we can't shoot for milestones and call
them "1.0" and "1.1", just that the sorcery update scheme shouldn't
use a numbered version scheme.

--
Nathan Doss ndoss AT mtlaurel.org




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page