Re: CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set

2009-11-02 Thread Adam Kennedy 
Opposed until someone can demonstrate working dependency algorithms
that take this into account.

-1

Adam K

Re: CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set

2009-10-10 Thread Zefram 
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

Re: CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set

2009-10-09 Thread Ricardo Signes 
* 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

2009-10-09 Thread Graham Barr 


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

2009-10-09 Thread David Golden 
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

2009-10-09 Thread David Golden 
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