On 30/11/2015 10:13, Andrzej Telszewski wrote:
> On 30/11/15 00:31, Christoph Willing wrote:
>> On 11/30/2015 09:11 AM, Andrzej Telszewski wrote:
>>> On 29/11/15 23:56, Christoph Willing wrote:
The only work is adding the options you want but that is also the
advantage - you have the
On Nov 30, 2015 4:44 AM, "Andrzej Telszewski" wrote:
>
> On 30/11/15 11:13, Didier Spaier wrote:
>>
>> On 30/11/2015 10:13, Andrzej Telszewski wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30/11/15 00:31, Christoph Willing wrote:
On 11/30/2015 09:11 AM, Andrzej Telszewski wrote:
>
>
On 30/11/15 11:13, Didier Spaier wrote:
On 30/11/2015 10:13, Andrzej Telszewski wrote:
On 30/11/15 00:31, Christoph Willing wrote:
On 11/30/2015 09:11 AM, Andrzej Telszewski wrote:
On 29/11/15 23:56, Christoph Willing wrote:
The only work is adding the options you want but that is also the
On 30/11/15 00:31, Christoph Willing wrote:
On 11/30/2015 09:11 AM, Andrzej Telszewski wrote:
On 29/11/15 23:56, Christoph Willing wrote:
The only work is adding the options you want but that is also the
advantage - you have the options _you_ want rather some some arbitrary
set of options the
On 29/11/15 17:56, Willy Sudiarto Raharjo wrote:
What do you think about putting optional (available from SBo)
dependencies in the info file?
I think that would allow for further automation.
What I have noticed is that, it's sometimes hard to go through the
README and spot all the optional
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
This would require that package managers be added the feature that
enables them to look at the optional line as well. They would need to
have the ability to ask if the optional dependencies are added and
which specific deps depending on which
On 29/11/15 18:51, Brenton Earl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
This would require that package managers be added the feature that
enables them to look at the optional line as well. They would need to
have the ability to ask if the optional dependencies are added and
2015-11-29 18:10 GMT+01:00 Andrzej Telszewski :
> On 29/11/15 17:56, Willy Sudiarto Raharjo wrote:
>>>
>>> What do you think about putting optional (available from SBo)
>>> dependencies in the info file?
>>> I think that would allow for further automation.
>>>
>>> What I
On 29/11/15 18:17, Matteo Bernardini wrote:
2015-11-29 18:10 GMT+01:00 Andrzej Telszewski :
On 29/11/15 17:56, Willy Sudiarto Raharjo wrote:
What do you think about putting optional (available from SBo)
dependencies in the info file?
I think that would allow for further
> What do you think about putting optional (available from SBo)
> dependencies in the info file?
> I think that would allow for further automation.
>
> What I have noticed is that, it's sometimes hard to go through the
> README and spot all the optional deps, because everybody writes README
> as
One of the nice things about the .info files is that just about anything
can be added to them; automated build tools will generally ignore any
new fields you may choose to add. From my clone of the SBo repo, I have
a branch named "spbuilder" (after the name of the build tool I use). In
that
On 29/11/15 23:56, Christoph Willing wrote:
The only work is adding the options you want but that is also the
advantage - you have the options _you_ want rather some some arbitrary
set of options the maintainer wants or believes end users will want.
Actually, it's like that at the moment and
> do you suggest that all dependencies are listed in the REQUIRES field or
> that there is a new field eg OPTIONAL introduced?
>
> for example in case of EMBOSS:
>
> REQUIRES="jdk"
>
> OPTIONAL="clustalw primer3"
That will make maintainer and admin's job becomes more complicated :)
--
Willy
On 29/11/15 18:41, Petar Petrov wrote:
do you suggest that all dependencies are listed in the REQUIRES field or
that there is a new field eg OPTIONAL introduced?
for example in case of EMBOSS:
REQUIRES="jdk"
OPTIONAL="clustalw primer3"
2015-11-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Andrzej Telszewski
On 11/30/2015 09:11 AM, Andrzej Telszewski wrote:
On 29/11/15 23:56, Christoph Willing wrote:
The only work is adding the options you want but that is also the
advantage - you have the options _you_ want rather some some arbitrary
set of options the maintainer wants or believes end users will
do you suggest that all dependencies are listed in the REQUIRES field or
that there is a new field eg OPTIONAL introduced?
for example in case of EMBOSS:
REQUIRES="jdk"
OPTIONAL="clustalw primer3"
2015-11-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Andrzej Telszewski :
> On 29/11/15 17:56,
16 matches
Mail list logo