Re: [Fink-devel] Re: Conditional Depends Syntax
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Darian Lanx wrote: Peter O'Gorman wrote: Daniel Macks wrote: Yes, I vote for a solution in Perl as well, yet I still think that the syntax is simply bad. Bad as in too complicated for the common or novice packager to understand. Maybe we could find a syntax that is based upon a flow thought and not based upon an expression how the underlying parser can best handle it. What does the syntax actually which to express? Basicaly what Benjamin stated, right ? If some condition is met use dependancy foo if not then use dependency blah. So why not do this in the abbreviated if syntax we all know from C or perl which can easily be explained. It we want to go programming-language-style: Depends: %type_perl_version == 5.8.1 thing-pm Depends: %type_nox == -nox || x11 It we want to be a bit more linguistic/thought-process oriented: Depends: %type_perl_version = 5.8.1 ? thing-pm dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356alloc_id=3438op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: Conditional Depends Syntax
Daniel Macks wrote: It we want to go programming-language-style: Depends: %type_perl_version == 5.8.1 thing-pm Depends: %type_nox == -nox || x11 It we want to be a bit more linguistic/thought-process oriented: Depends: %type_perl_version = 5.8.1 ? thing-pm Actually, I think the part that seemed most confusing to me was the whole %type_perl_version thing. Is it a perl hash? is it a % expansion? Is it neither? Is it a reference to some internal function, or just a token? What is the significance of type? It seems to be overloading the existing % stuff in a way that just feels weird to me. Not that I really have a better suggestion, really, it's just that it makes the info files look even more busy and/or obtuse than they already do. --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356alloc_id=3438op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] Re: Conditional Depends Syntax
Daniel Macks wrote: snip all Thoughts? To put it short and please do not see this as completely useless critique. This is too complicated for my taste. Creating packages for Fink has to be as simple as humanly possible, because it enables us to harvest more willing package maintainers when the work they are doing isn't too complicated. I know that this requirement introduces a challenge to the actual engine behind the packages, yet we should accept this challenge. I know how to handle regular expression albeit I am no Guru with them. But you can hardly expect the majority of the Mac community that might be willing to learn and grow into packaging to learn much about regular expressions. This is partly my personal opinion, partly an opinion as someone who wants to keep things simple so that we do not slide into a documentation, explanation, support nightmare. -d --- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] Re: Conditional Depends Syntax
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 02:45:59PM +0100, Darian Lanx wrote: Daniel Macks wrote: snip all Thoughts? To put it short and please do not see this as completely useless critique. This is too complicated for my taste. [...] But you can hardly expect the majority of the Mac community that might be willing to learn and grow into packaging to learn much about regular expressions. The simpler version of the idea is just a simple string equality test: Depends: (%type_perl_version 5.8.1) thing-pm Depends: (X%type_nox X) x11 Either tho two strings are the same (so the package is kept as a dependency) or they are not (in which case the it is not). Although the second example is kinda shell-ugly. This is partly my personal opinion, partly an opinion as someone who wants to keep things simple so that we do not slide into a documentation, explanation, support nightmare. Makes sense. That's why I'm here looking for improvements rather than already off wading through Fink:: :). Thanks for the feedback, dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks --- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
