On 8/1/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2006/8/1, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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.
>
I don't like the idea of Recipes not having a Dependency file. It's
much easier to ignore it if it exists than to Compile the prog/lib if
it depend on something, but there's no depency file.
The idea is that they would still have Dependencies file if they can
be compiled stand-alone.
Are there progs/lib that _always_ will be a part of a meta recipe?
Yes, I think so. Kdelibs can only be compiled alongside Arts, for
example (at least for now).
Can't there be a case where just someone wants to Compile it
separatly?
Yes, then it would not be set part_of_meta_only. This would not apply
to all subrecipes.
If a recipe is to be included only in a meta recipe it
should be stored in a separate directory at the server (as suggested)
or the name of the recipe should say so, i.e.
xfce-mcs-manager-meta--4.3.90.2--recipe.tar.bz2 (only as part of xfce
meta), so it isn't Compiled separatly by mistake.
I like your idea of specifying in the recipe name. It removes the need
for the parent_recipe var I was unhappy with. I will rethink the
proposed implementation I posted.
PS. Meta recipes should still be reworked :)
Ideas are always welcome :)
-- Hisham
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
