sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: Nick Jennings <nkj AT namodn.com>
- To: Nathan Doss <ndoss AT mtlaurel.org>
- Cc: Seth Woolley <seth AT tautology.org>, sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:15:33 -0700
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 10:15:25PM -0400, Nathan Doss wrote:
>
> 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).
Ok.
>
> * 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.
Uhm, isn't that what it currently does?
> * 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 strongly disagree that "stable" is good enough. People should know
exactly what version of sorcery they are running. I do not think it
is OK to sacrifice this.
> * 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.
Same as above.
-
[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.