Am 31.12.2003 um 22:21 schrieb Ben Hines:
On Dec 31, 2003, at 12:32 PM, Max Horn wrote:
Am 31.12.2003 um 21:00 schrieb Martin Costabel:
Ben Hines wrote:On Dec 22, 2003, at 4:50 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:[]I am dreaming of a mechanism that would remove a BuilDependsOnly package immediately after it is used. This would not only solve this problem, but also come in handy in other situations (it would help with the freetype2 mess, for example).That is planned.
It is??? Did you folks really think this through? I'd be curious to learn how that should be doable, see below...
Yes, it is absolutely doable and yes, i have thought it through. Have you? In fact thesin has already begun to implement it. It basically requires redoing the whole dep search after each build.
By planned i mean we plan to do it. Yes it is hard. No we have not figured out exactly the best way to do it, etc... No need to be acting like a dick again Max, all I said was "That is planned"
Err, sorry, but I don't understand why you react so extremely aggressive. I just re-read what I wrote, and I still don't get why what I wrote makes me a dick (again, apparently). I was merely asking, and IMO not even impolite (although maybe due the fact that I am not a native speaker I am missing something abusive I said, although I have not the slightest clue what that would be). I was (and am) seriously surprised by this approach (tried to show that by my use of three question marks, BTW). I didn't mean to say that you or anybody else involved in this matter is stupid, or whatever else you thought I was implying. I simply didn't understand, and hence did what is usually a good idea in such a situation: ask.
[...]
2. Introduce a "reaper" that removes *all* buildonly packages. The reaper has to run every time before fink starts a package build process.
Doesn't sound like a good idea. Many people (including me) who actually use fink packages for development would be very unhappy about this. I need a lot of our buildonly packages (e.g. -dev package with header files). Having to manually reinstall them whenever I use fink to install something would be a nightmare (and essentially make fink useless).
You wouldn't, dude. It'd be optional and you'd be able to hold certain packages of course.
Good to hear!
These are obvious problems which I immediately considered. I am also a developer/
Well, dude :-), that's cool that you immediately considered those problems, I am glad to hear that. Even better would have been if you had shared those thoughts with us in your email, then I would have known that you considered them. Sadly, my mind reading module is currently in repair, and the repair crew is on vacation. Plus I forgot the fact that you are impeccable, and as such forgot to implicitly assume you considered every single problem that might arise. Silly me! :-)
Back to serious: I am sorry if this has been explained on this list before, I obviously missed that email (in which case you simply could point me to that email, instead of shouting :-). Or point me at the IRC logs where you discussed it (however, on the long run IRC logs of discussion are not enough. Please always sum up major decisions and plans in an email so that even those who couldn't attend that discussion can witness what's going on).
Despite all this: A Happy new year to everybody!
Cheers,
Max
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
