On 9/22/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:31:48 +0200, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/22/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:39:14 +0200, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> > Yes, would be worth measuring the benefits and seeing if the existing
> > BuildInformation doesn't steer the results in a wrong direction
> > (conceptually, I'd probably rather not have any tools depend on
> > BuildInformation, as we relegated that to an "informative" status
> > only).
> >
> But I think we need to upgrade BuildInformation from informative to usable
> information as now it's more correct with respect to which applications are
> linked, and only one level. We're stuck with using BuildDependencies anyway,
> if
> we want any useful result from CheckDependants.
I meant that the contents of Resources/BuildInformation are merely
informative. The output of GenBuildInformation on the specific system
(as used by CheckDependants) is usable. In fact a better name for the
script would probably be GenLinkInformation.
> how about:
>
> echo -n ${depname} ${depver}
> Boolean "verbose" && echo -n " ${depinfo}" >&2 # holding Dependencies or
> BuildInformation
> echo ""
>
> that way the information will be visible, but eaily removable with 2>/dev/null
Yeah, something like that. But mixing streams in a single line is
probably not a good idea. But since depinfo is already conditioned by
Boolean "verbose", there's no need for separate streams, really. I
suggest: (untested)
Boolean "verbose" && where=" ${depinfo}"
echo "${depname} ${depver}${where}"
> >> >> >> And with
> >> >> >> the last regex for grepping for the version, one miss the feature of
> >> >> >> just checking for major version or major + minor version, and
> >> >> >> skipping
> >> >> >> bugfix releases and below.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It was not a feature, it was a bug. For example, I checked dependants
> >> >> > of "GTK+ 2.10.1" to see if I could delete it and keep only the newer
> >> >> > GTK+ 2.10.14, it returned a lot of false hits.
> >> >> >
> >> >> For me it was a feature.
> >> >
> >> > It produced incorrect results.
> >> >
> >> Yes, with my last implementation, but that can be fixed.
> >>
> >> >> How about checking if the version specified
> >> >> exists and if so, add '$' to the end of the grep expression, otherwice
> >> >> just leave it?
> >> >
> >> > Personally, I would find that behavior inconsistent from a user
> >> > perspective.
> >> >
> >> Why? Imo "tweakability" is a good thing, and I believe this adds this. You
> >> are
> >> also presented with this information in the CheckDependants help.
> >
> > My suggestion would be to call
> >
> > CheckDependants Python '2.5.*'
> >
> > which works without the $ trick.
> >
> But it's too technical. I can understand why a technical, exact
> implementation is
> prefered (and that's probably what's going to be used in final version of this
> script), but I would like something more userfriendly, or at least raise a
> discussion on what is userfriendly with respect to our tools. I believe that
> using
> '2.5.*' is correct but too technical, forcing the user to know some sort of
> syntax. I think that 'CheckDependants python 2.5' (or even 'CheckDependants
> python
> 2.5.') would be more logical to the "normal" user.
I'm always wary about making conjectures about what the archetypical
"normal" user expects. But what *I* would expect if I ran
"CheckDependants python 2.5" would be for it to check the dependants
of Python 2.5. Not 2.5.1, not 2.5 and above, or any other possibility.
If you really find the $ trick needed, add it as an option, like
"CheckDependants --include-minors python 2.5". Now _that_ I'd expect
to check all minor versions of python 2.5.x.
-- Hisham
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
