Le 22 mai 2014 à 01:02, Johan Fabry a écrit : > > On May 21, 2014, at 5:07 AM, Christophe Demarey <christophe.dema...@inria.fr> > wrote: > >> To me, it is preferable to add a configuration (even if very small) for each >> dependency outside your project. It is the way it should be done (that's why >> Versionner only allows that) but they are always other ways or workarounds. > > Thanks for the answers, my trick now was to ask Alex to include the required > package inside the configuration of Roassal. :-) > > In general I am not so sure that adding configurations for one simple package > are the way to go though. It seems like adding extra layers of indirection > for reasons that are unclear to me.
The reason is that any package* should be self described. Your configuration describes your project. If you use another piece of software, it should also be self-described. Let's take the following example: for now, it's easy for you to add a direct dependency to Roassal2Spec, just as if it was a part of your project ... => no problem ... but it is not. Maybe tomorrow, Alex will need to add a dependency to one or more packages for Roassal2Spec => you will have problems because you will not get these dependencies. Of course, you can still add them to your configuration but you can easily see that you will end with a configuration including all flatten dependencies, and with a lot of dependencies not directly related to your project (transitive dependencies). Flatten dependencies is really something that we should avoid, else maintenance of dependencies will be a hell. That's why I'm really in favor of having configurations, even for one single MC package inside the configuration. * I mean, not a Monticello package but a piece of software that you want to deliver independently. It may be a whole project or part of it. It may also refers to one or many Monticello packages
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
