Hi Paul, >Eric & KP, > >Looks nice, been trying to catch up on things... > >Couple of questions, while we're doing the 3.0 flag day, would it be OK >if we made the package dependancies explicit, not part of the help file? > That would be a good idea.
<snip> > >The dependencies should theoretically be recursive (there are pros and cons). > Agree with that, that's also the way dependancies are listed in the help files now. <snip> > > >In any case, the magic needed to be done to apkg/lrpkg can come later, >but we need to get the new hooks into the package control files sooner >rather than later. > >I propose modifying the XML to formalize the dependancies instead of >putting them in the help file, and creating <packagename>.depend control >files. > >What do you guys think? > Although I'm no real fan of automatic dependancy tracking it's a good idea to be prepared. The only thing is that it will cost a lot of time to change almost every buildtool.cfg file... There is an other option (less clean), the dependancies are now listed in the help files with a 'requires:' keyword. It is possible with some small sed scripting to extract that info in apkg. Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
