Re: CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set

2009-11-02 Thread Adam Kennedy
Opposed until someone can demonstrate working dependency algorithms that take this into account. -1 Adam K

Re: CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set

2009-10-10 Thread Zefram
David Golden wrote: especially handy for case of circular dependencies, where the A requires B at runtime, but B requires A at build time. (kentnl) Isn't this just the difference between build_requires and (runtime_)requires? I'm not seeing a difference between the latter and post_requires.

Re: CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set

2009-10-09 Thread Ricardo Signes
* David Golden xda...@gmail.com [2009-10-09T07:48:25] 13. Add a post_depends set Proposal: Permit specifying of packages that should be installed to provide part of a packages functionality, but should be installed/built *after* the package is installed. (kentnl) No vote. I'm

Re: CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set

2009-10-09 Thread Graham Barr
On Oct 9, 2009, at 6:48 AM, David Golden wrote: 13. Add a post_depends set Proposal: Permit specifying of packages that should be installed to provide part of a packages functionality, but should be installed/built *after* the package is installed. (kentnl) I hate circular

Re: CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set

2009-10-09 Thread David Golden
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:48 AM, David Golden xda...@gmail.com wrote: 13. Add a post_depends set Proposal: Permit specifying of packages that should be installed to provide part of a packages functionality, but should be installed/built *after* the package is installed. (kentnl) Strongly

Re: CMSP 13. Add a post_depends set

2009-10-09 Thread David Golden
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Hans Dieter Pearcey h...@pobox.com wrote: Excerpts from David Golden's message of Fri Oct 09 12:09:09 -0400 2009: On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:48 AM, David Golden xda...@gmail.com wrote: Permit specifying of packages that should be installed to provide part of a