Re: CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set
Opposed until someone can demonstrate working dependency algorithms that take this into account. -1 Adam K
Re: CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set
David Golden wrote: especially handy for case of circular dependencies, where the A requires B at runtime, but B requires A at build time. (kentnl) Isn't this just the difference between build_requires and (runtime_)requires? I'm not seeing a difference between the latter and post_requires. -zefram
CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set
13. Add a post_depends set Proposal: Permit specifying of packages that should be installed to provide part of a packages functionality, but should be installed/built *after* the package is installed. (kentnl) Comments: * Being able to specify package that should be installed after the current package is an immeasurably handy tool in dependency resolution. Its especially handy for case of circular dependencies, where the A requires B at runtime, but B requires A at build time. (kentnl) * I acknowledge the name above is a crappy one, but the concept is what this proposal matters about. Alternatives welcomed. (kentnl) * My main concern with this is that the current model creates a simple directed graph amenable to recursion, and any circular dependencies imposed become rather obvious. I worry that post_requires dependencies will make some of the recursion algorithms too complex to be reliable. I can't prove this yet though, so this is worth keeping an eye and considering in more depth. --Adam K
Re: CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set
* David Golden xda...@gmail.com [2009-10-09T07:48:25] 13. Add a post_depends set Proposal: Permit specifying of packages that should be installed to provide part of a packages functionality, but should be installed/built *after* the package is installed. (kentnl) No vote. I'm conflicted. This is something that might benefit Moose, which has to deal with incompatible downstream now and then. -- rjbs
Re: CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set
On Oct 9, 2009, at 6:48 AM, David Golden wrote: 13. Add a post_depends set Proposal: Permit specifying of packages that should be installed to provide part of a packages functionality, but should be installed/built *after* the package is installed. (kentnl) I hate circular dependencies, but they happen. +1 Graham.
Re: CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:48 AM, David Golden xda...@gmail.com wrote: 13. Add a post_depends set Proposal: Permit specifying of packages that should be installed to provide part of a packages functionality, but should be installed/built *after* the package is installed. (kentnl) Strongly opposed. This is what Bundles/Tasks are for. (Particularly if we have ordered prereqs for Tasks.) We don't need that happening in META also. David
Re: CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Hans Dieter Pearcey h...@pobox.com wrote: Excerpts from David Golden's message of Fri Oct 09 12:09:09 -0400 2009: On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:48 AM, David Golden xda...@gmail.com wrote: Permit specifying of packages that should be installed to provide part of a packages functionality, but should be installed/built *after* the package is installed. (kentnl) Strongly opposed. This is what Bundles/Tasks are for. (Particularly if we have ordered prereqs for Tasks.) We don't need that happening in META also. Sort of; should be installed to provide functionality is for Bundle/Task, but after the package is installed is for circular deps. I'm not sure why they're squished together like this. I think CPAN/PLUS can resolve circular dependencies (or can be fixed to do so). They don't need extra meta stuff for it. It's not just after anyway -- it requires PERL5LIB manipulations and so on to pass tests. It doesn't belong in META. David
