sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
- To: Nick Jennings <nkj AT namodn.com>
- Cc: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:03:40 -0400 (EDT)
That would cause problems if the onfigure is supposed to override
parameters in details.
Best thing for this would seem to me, would be to add another script...
CONFIGURE_SPELL or something like that which runs first (where CONFIGURE
is run ATM) and put CONFIGURE back where it was.
I'm not much for adding stages though... What do we currently have?
DETAILS, CONFIGURE, PRE_BUILD, BUILD, POST_BUILD, DETPENDS, CONFLICTS,
TRIGGERS, DISPEL, POST_DISPEL (is there a PRE_DISPEL?), POST_INSTALL (is
there a PRE_ ?)... Have I missed any? That's a lot, which is why I would
prefer to avoid adding more. However, it may be the best way.
Has anyone though of a way to reduce the number of scripts that a spell
can use?
On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Nick Jennings wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So I have been getting reports of lots of spells broken because of the
> change Ryan made to switch the order so CONFIGURE is run before DETAILS.
>
> It seems to me like both methods are important. For some of the KDE
> il8n spells, things work out better when CONFIGURE is run before DETAILS,
> for lots of other spells though, CONFIGURE relies on values from
> DETAILS.
>
> I don't think either way is inherently wrong, both are usefull. So I'm
> wondering if we should switch back, or if perhaps we should do a:
>
> run_details &&
> run_configure &&
> run_details &&
>
> Or is that a bit too much?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Nick Jennings
> Sorcery Team Lead
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Sorcery mailing list
> SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery
>
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
-----------------
PGP public key at
http://wwwkeys.ch.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x92B5D3F1
-
[SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order,
Nick Jennings, 09/16/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order,
Dufflebunk, 09/16/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order,
Aaron Brice, 09/16/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order,
Dufflebunk, 09/17/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order,
Nick Jennings, 09/17/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order,
Aaron Brice, 09/18/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order,
Ryan Abrams, 09/18/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order, Tony Smith, 09/20/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order, Ryan Abrams, 09/20/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order, Wolfgang Scheicher, 09/20/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order, Aaron Brice, 09/20/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order, Tony Smith, 09/20/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order,
Ryan Abrams, 09/18/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order,
Aaron Brice, 09/18/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order,
Nick Jennings, 09/17/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order,
Dufflebunk, 09/17/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order,
Aaron Brice, 09/16/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order,
Dufflebunk, 09/16/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.