Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-sorcery - [SM-Sorcery] Re: [SM-Grimoire] Version Dependancy

sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Robin Cook <rcook AT wyrms.net>
  • To: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
  • Cc: sm-sorcery <sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org>, Grimoire <sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [SM-Sorcery] Re: [SM-Grimoire] Version Dependancy
  • Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:59:31 -0000

I think is this going to be a problem no matter what we do as we will
get spells such as bar and gin where each depend on a different version
of foo and will only work with that version. And someone is going to
want both installed. I don't really see us having the man power to spend
time making multiple versions of spells be installable at the same time
that aren't that way already. Those that are capable of doing so can
have different spells for them, though we might want to find a better
way of naming them.

CuZnDragon
Robin Cook

On Sat, 2003-06-21 at 14:25, Dufflebunk wrote:
> It seems that as our spell base increases, we are starting to get more
> more bugs due to version mismatches (doesn't look linear either). It may
> be time to add support for versions in. I don't know how much impact
> this will have on the spell format. Perhaps none for those who don't use
> versions, or perhaps everyone will have to modify their spells. It
> depends on exactly what is necessary. There are several questions whos
> answers must be agreed upon before we start trying to put this in.
> Before I list the questions that pop into my mind, I will explain the
> main problem with adding version information. Versioning is not
> standard.
>
> Let's say we have a spell Foo whos version is 1.3b, and another spell,
> Bar that depends on Foo, version 1.3 or later. Is 1.3b after 1.3 or
> before? Does the 'b' stand for Beta, or second? I can tell you that it
> might be either. The grammar is inconsistent and depends on the project
> (and even then projects change versioning systems (think mozilla's
> milestones)). Testing for version equality is not a problem. The problem
> is version ordering.
> Any project using the simple Major.Minor.Patch system is easy. Any
> using ReleaseDate is easy. The rest become problematic when attempting
> to tell which system is being used.
>
> There are two solutions I can thing of:
> a) Only a subset of all versioning system can be used for version
> ordering (equality is not a problem), probably the standard (GNU?) and
> date, or
> b) Every spell that wants stuff to be able to depend on a version of
> itself must include a file which has the versions, in order, that it has
> gone through.
>
> Solution b is the simplest for the sorcery team. But a is easier for the
> gurus and spell writers... I think... since spells that use stupid
> versioning are crippled it might be harder.
>
> Now, onto the questions:
> 1) Do we want more than one version of a spell in a grimoire? It would
> be possible to put subdirectories in a spell, one per version supported.
> The VERSIONSING file if that's the route we take would be int the top
> spell directory.
>
> 2) Do we ever want the ability to have two versions of the same spell
> installed? If yes, how would this fit with the work being done on
> INSTALL_ROOT?
>
> 3) Would version based depends be required?
>
> I set up polls in the forums in the sorcery section. I would prefer that
> as a medium if you have alternative suggestions. Please vote.
> http://forums.sourcemage.org/viewforum.php?f=9
>
> And remember, this is a crosspost. You may just want to use the forum
> for small comments.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page