On 8/1/06, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/31/06, André Detsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the best behaviour for Dependencies at meta-recipes?
>
> After thinking a little bit about it, I think the following items
> should be respected / assumed:
> - The meta-recipe must accumulate all dependencies for its 'childs';
> - There is no need for dependencies checking when compiling each child
> recipes (derived from first item);
> - If a recipe is only going to be compiled only in a meta-recipe
> context, the recipe should not even have a Dependencies file.
>
> We already 'unofficially' assume the first item. Item two demands some
> small adjustments at Compile. I'm not 100% sure about the third item.
> The idea of the third item would be to avoid unnecessary replication
> of information (which tends to get out of sync).
>
> Comments?
I'm ok with these changes. However, I would be something more reserved
when talking about the 3rd item. Doesn't it sound better to store them
in a separate directory at the server, or maybe including a new flag
stating that they are intended to be compiled as a group?
I like the flag approach. Something very clear like,
part_of_meta_only=yes
I can add that now (my lab is back). RecipeLint can even check and
flag an ERROR if a Recipe with part_of_meta_only set contains a
Dependencies file.
-- Hisham
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
