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: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:40:18 -0700
Actually Nathan, this has absolutely nothing to do with the problem.
CONFIGURE was getting it's job done fine. It was setting the variable
in $SPELL_CONFIG (i.e. /etc/sorcery/local/depends/<spellname>) which
was loaded everytime before CONFIGURE.
The main problem was that when the spell was being installed, the
version of the new spell (i.e. 0.8.0.1) would not be known, until
*after* the spell was downloaded and installed, due to the fact
that the VERSION was not specified in the spell's DETAILS file.
So, you'd like you had 0.8.0 install, but you really had 0.8.0.1
installed, because the $VERSION was 0.8.0 until *after* the spell
was installed (the installed packages list would be one version
behind the currently installed one).
This is just one obvious problem, there were actually several more
little problems where sometimes a var in the DETAILS file would not
be getting set because some system configuration file
(mostly /etc/sorcery/config) was not being set.
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 12:14:17AM -0400, Nathan Doss wrote:
>
> Having multiple spells causes it's own set of problems. That's
> why we keep switching back & forth.
>
> I think we can have a system where a single spell works well. In
> fact, I think we were almost there. If the CONFIGURE script had done:
>
> ". $SPELL_DIRECTORY/DETAILS"
>
> after the version had been set, I think we'd have been set or at
> least almost set.
>
> --
> Nathan Doss ndoss AT mtlaurel.org
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Sorcery mailing list
> SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery
>
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells
, (continued)
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Nick Jennings, 09/09/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Nick Jennings, 09/09/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Ryan Abrams, 09/09/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Dufflebunk, 09/09/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Ryan Abrams, 09/09/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Nick Jennings, 09/09/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Ryan Abrams, 09/09/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Dufflebunk, 09/09/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Nick Jennings, 09/09/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Nathan Doss, 09/09/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Nick Jennings, 09/09/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Nick Jennings, 09/09/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.