On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:56 PM, P. <uploa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's an unpopular vote, but I'll say it anyway. > How about portable packages? > As in, if you download package P that is dependent on packages D, E, F, then > package P comes with the correct versions of D, E, F embedded in it? > That way we do away with dependencies altogether. > (yes, there'll be redundancy for the sake of convenience. I don't know the > implications re compiling)
As Doug noted, generally you don't want to bundle dependencies. However, I believe the proposed would handle this use case if you really wanted to, since you could distribute a populated `packages` subdirectory inside your top-level package's distribution. -Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
