2016-06-05 10:48 GMT+02:00 Tom Hacohen :
> Hm... we don't do "if dependencies are found" any more... This should be
> reverted.
>
> The point of not having magic is not having magic. We want things to
> explicitly fail when deps are missing. Not implicitly disabled.
>
OK,
On 06/05/2016 06:51 PM, Davide Andreoli wrote:
> 2016-06-05 10:48 GMT+02:00 Tom Hacohen :
>
>> Hm... we don't do "if dependencies are found" any more... This should be
>> reverted.
>>
>> The point of not having magic is not having magic. We want things to
>> explicitly
2016-06-05 10:48 GMT+02:00 Tom Hacohen :
> Hm... we don't do "if dependencies are found" any more... This should be
> reverted.
>
> The point of not having magic is not having magic. We want things to
> explicitly fail when deps are missing. Not implicitly disabled.
>
Ok,
Yes in this case they probably should be on by default with a disable
flag if someone doesn't want them. That makes it much easier for
packagers to pick up there missing a dep
Cheers
On 06/05/2016 06:18 PM, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> Hm... we don't do "if dependencies are found" any more... This
Hm... we don't do "if dependencies are found" any more... This should be
reverted.
The point of not having magic is not having magic. We want things to
explicitly fail when deps are missing. Not implicitly disabled.
--
Tom.
On 04/06/16 20:45, Dave Andreoli wrote:
> davemds pushed a commit to