sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: Hamish Greig <hgreig AT bigpond.net.au>
- To: SM Sorcery <sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:31:45 +1100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
don't forget POST_BUILD is currently the cut-off point for logging ,
md5summing and caching.
Many spells use POST_BUILD to interact with files before calling
default_post_build so that the BUILD file is more manageable (see my
additions to bash POST_BUILD and you will know exactly what I mean)
POST_INSTALL changes are all untracked (as Casey points out somewhere in this
thread)
Someone mentions merging the two sets of files, but for this reason that
might
not work.
Hamish
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:44, Andrew wrote:
> > If it's truly backwards compatible (which it sounds like it is) I see no
> > reason not to try it as cleanup is our goal, and it sounds like this
> > would do some cleanup (separating some of the libraries into lib files)
> > along with fixing a few of the filed bugs.
>
> Its totally backwards compatible. The code looks for INSTALL or COMPILE,
> and if they exist follows the new behavior, otherwise it reverts to the
> old.
>
> One issue is that POST_BUILD and POST_INSTALL are now both run after
> INSTALL (which is the last half of BUILD). This presents a slight
> inconsistancy, as POST_INSTALL now runs after POST_BUILD rather than
> immediatly after INSTALL like one would thing. So a global renaming
> of all the POST_BUILD/POST_INSTALL files might be in order. But theres
> certainly no reason to not allow that file to still work during a
> transition period (just as with BUILD). Does that make sense?
>
> What should POST_BUILD be renamed to? Or should we leave it with its
> contradictory name?
>
> -Andrew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAT92h8fSufZR6424RAn2wAJwPvIWEevcr667c4Xg0qpJSf/govwCgjTCb
L3iOPwNxJAwu8f9Gzu1RhzI=
=mkfn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD
, (continued)
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD,
Andrew, 03/10/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD,
Eric Sandall, 03/10/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD,
Andrew, 03/10/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD,
Jason Flatt, 03/10/2004
- Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD, Andrew, 03/10/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD,
Casey Harkins, 03/10/2004
- Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD, Casey Harkins, 03/10/2004
- Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD, Hamish Greig, 03/10/2004
- Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD, Eric Sandall, 03/11/2004
- Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD, Casey Harkins, 03/11/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD,
Jason Flatt, 03/10/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD,
Andrew, 03/10/2004
- Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD, Hamish Greig, 03/10/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD,
Eric Sandall, 03/10/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD,
Andrew, 03/10/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD,
Hamish Greig, 03/13/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD,
Arwed von Merkatz, 03/13/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD,
Andrew, 03/13/2004
- Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD, Arwed von Merkatz, 03/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD,
Andrew, 03/13/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] splitting BUILD,
Arwed von Merkatz, 03/13/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.