On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Graydon Hoare <[email protected]> wrote:
> Any thoughts? Notes on other failure modes in package managers? Requests > for ponies? I'd prefer specificity in response, if you can manage it. We > all know package management is "generally miserable", but if you can > describe _exactly_ how things go wrong in other systems and what we > should be trying to avoid, or aiming for, that'd be good. > Two failure modes I ran into when using the Go build system, which this is similar to: 1) Is it still possible to build without using this system? Once my project had particular build requirements (I think I needed to shell out to a built program to generate more source code) I could no longer use the built-in "go build" command, and it turned out they'd grown dependencies between that and their unit-testing library -- that is, you couldn't use the built-in unit test library if you were running the compiler yourself, as "go build" had some codegen machinery in it required by the library! I guess this is another way of supporting Dean's point, that you need the escape hatch to be pretty wide to encompass all potential behaviors. 2) Where does a "configure" step fit into this? If you're linking against C headers or whatever you need a place to run extra code. The reason I bring it up is that you need the ability to run some steps before the other builds start, which means you need to express some sort of build-system-like dependency logic in between your pkg.rs steps. I guess that's inevitable though. This point might as well be the same thing as the first. :)
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
