Dirk Reiners wrote:

>    Hi Allen,
>
>Allen Bierbaum wrote:
>  
>
>>Thanks.  That worked great.  The cycle is now removed.  I really like 
>>the idea of how common.libs.in centralizes all the dependency 
>>information.  When Dirk and I first create the build.info files I don't 
>>think we realized how distributed the source for any one library was in 
>>the tree.  Now that I see how the files have worked out I would really 
>>like to centralize the dependency information in a single location.  It 
>>shouldn't be hard to do.  I may not have time this week to get to it, 
>>but I will create a ticket to remind myself to get it done.
>>  
>>    
>>
>I don't like the fully centralized version very much, as it makes it 
>hard to dynamically add and remove stuff. The old system was half and 
>half: the central one covered some pieces, but you could always add new 
>stuff anywhere in the tree. The disadvantage was that you needed to 
>explicitly list all directories that were to be included, of which we 
>have a lot more now than we used to.
>
>What is the problem with the current setup? You ave multiple build.info 
>files for a lib, but do you need to replicate information in multiple 
>places?
>  
>

I can put my finger on it for sure, the current setup just has a bad 
smell to it.  There are duplicated settings in many places.  Maybe it 
really points to the code being separated in multiple places and the 
source tree needs reorganized... I don't really know.  In any case the 
current setup is a pain when problems like this crop up because there is 
no place you can go to see the "standard" dependencies for a given 
library.  You have to look in multiple build.info files throughout the tree.

The current setup would not be bad if there was one single place 
(directory) that could be considered the "standard" root for a given 
library.  Then we could put all the lib deps in there and not replicate 
them everywhere else.  In other directories the build.info file would 
end up very simple and only really saying what library to put the code into.

I would not want to give up the current support, I am just looking for a 
way to centralize the basics of it a little more.

-Allen

>    Dirk
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
>Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
>opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
>http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
>_______________________________________________
>Opensg-users mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
>
>  
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Opensg-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users

Reply via email to