At 16:59 Uhr +0100 16.02.2003, jfm wrote:
This has at least these two problems:On Sunday, Feb 16, 2003, at 02:43 Europe/Brussels, Max Horn wrote:... we could add a "fink index foo.info" command, which would add the specified .info file(s) to the index. This way, you could just (re)index the files you are working on, avoiding having to do full indexing too often.Yes _ but for quite some time, whenever I edited an info file and wanted to run it right after, I had to run
explicitly 'fink index', and tended to forget it one time out of two in the rush... "fink index foo.info" would
have the same risks...
Would there be a real time-penalty in checking, before any build, whether the index is up to date w.r.t.
that specific info file, and if not run automatically some "fink index foo.info" ?
* We have to record the location of the matching .info file (note that it could even exist in multiple places, e.g. local/stable/unstable, and in different versions)
* New .info files can't be found this way; thus you won't pick up new revs or new versions this way
Note that in this discussion I'd like to different kind of user needs:
1) Normal users
2) Fink developers
For the average user, the current system imposes a slow down, with little (nothing?) gained.
For fink developers, the current behavior sometimes is very annoying (slow), and sometimes nice because it lets you "fire & forget", that is, you don't have to think of updating the index first etc. I do understand the wish to have this happen automatically (I am a pkg developer myself, and I know what it means to forget to cause a reindex).
I see no way we how we could fulfill both sets of needs at the same time, as they simply have different priorities. However, since the far majority of people using Fink fall into category 1, I think our default behavior should be as I described it. That doesn't stop is from adding a fink.conf option to turn back on the old behaviour, though. No problem there.
There is actually a 3rd category I guess, people who want to make their own .info files for the first time. They would probably be confused if they have to reindex manually. The first step we should take to accomodate these people probably should be to finally write a packaging HOWTO, which summarizes the basic steps to write an .info file.
In any case, I am by no means trying to push this thing... maybe there still is a way to solve this better than both the current and my proposed changed approach. I just don't see how :-/
Cheers,
Max
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
