Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-sorcery - Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order

sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
  • To: Aaron Brice <abrice2 AT cox.net>
  • Cc: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]CONFIGURE & DETAILS order
  • Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 04:59:45 -0400 (EDT)

It is sourced now. Although sourcing in bash also executs it. Is there a
message somewhere we can point Aaron to about why CONFIGURE was moved?

On 16 Sep 2002, Aaron Brice wrote:

> I don't have a clear understanding of what the pre-DETAILS configure was
> supposed to fix. If the purpose is to overwrite the DETAILS file with a
> new DETAILS file to get dynamic variables, maybe we could make DETAILS
> be executed instead of sourced so querying could be done.. But maybe
> that's not the point. I'm too scared to do a sorcery update so I can't
> see what the implementation was.. ;)
>
> Aaron
>
> On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 11:03, Dufflebunk wrote:
> > 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 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






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page