Hi Stef For example, my project can depend on Iceberg using the following definition:
spec baseline: 'Iceberg' with: [ spec repository: > 'github://pharo-vcs/iceberg/:<someversion>' ]; But now suppose my project have one package that depends on Iceberg "minimal" and other that depends on the "default" group, how do I describe that in my baseline? Using project:with I can define two different names for the same dependency but in different version or group. For example, I could define "Iceberg Minimal" project that loads the "minimal" group and another "Iceberg Default" that loads the "default"group and then refer to them by name, right? I would like to know how to do that with projects from Iceberg (git) that defines only BaselineOf. On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi vitor > > I'm sorry but I do not understand your question? can you rephrase it and > give an example? > > Stef > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Vitor Medina Cruz <vitormc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello Stephane >> >> What if I want to define two projects for the same baseline: both >> pointing to different groups? >> >> >> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >> Livre >> de vírus. www.avg.com >> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>. >> >> <#m_-6869378333471435460_m_-7133589263725951599_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> >> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Stephane Ducasse < >> stepharo.s...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> From a baseline you can refer to a none github configuration >>> >>> here is an example from the pillar newpipeline dev branch it shows you >>> both: dependencies on github projects and smalltalkhub >>> >>> >>> baseline: spec >>> <baseline> >>> spec >>> for: #common >>> do: [ spec blessing: #baseline. >>> spec repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pier/Pillar/main/'. >>> spec >>> baseline: 'OSSubprocess' >>> with: [ spec >>> repository: 'github://marianopeck/OSSubprocess:v0.2.5/repository' ]; >>> >>> baseline: 'Mustache' >>> with: [ spec repository: 'github://noha/mustache:v1.0/repository' >>> ]; >>> >>> project: 'Cocoon' >>> with: [ spec >>> className: #ConfigurationOfCocoon; >>> versionString: #stable; >>> repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/PharoExtras/Cocoon/main' ]; >>> >>> project: 'JSON' >>> with: [ spec >>> className: #ConfigurationOfJSON; >>> versionString: #stable; >>> repository: >>> 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/PharoExtras/JSON/main/' ]; >>> >>> >>> project: 'LightPhaser' >>> with: [ spec >>> className: #ConfigurationOfLightPhaser; >>> versionString: '1.0.2'; >>> repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pier/LightPhaser/main/' ]; >>> project: 'PetitParser' >>> with: [ spec >>> className: #ConfigurationOfPetitParser; >>> versionString: #stable; >>> loads: #('Tests'); >>> repository: 'http://www.smalltalkhub.com/mc/Moose/PetitParser/main' ]; >>> project: 'PetitParserTest' >>> with: [ spec >>> className: #ConfigurationOfPetitParser; >>> versionString: #stable; >>> loads: #('Tests'); >>> repository: 'http://www.smalltalkhub.com/mc/Moose/PetitParser/main' ]. >>> spec >>> package: 'Pillar-Cli' with: [ spec requires: #('Pillar-ExporterCore') ]; >>> package: 'Pillar-Cli-PillarVersion' with: [ spec requires: >>> #('Pillar-Cli') ]; >>> package: #'Pillar-ExporterAsciiDoc' >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Vitor Medina Cruz <vitormc...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> This is mostly true, but ATM you may want to wrap your BaselineOf in a >>> >> ConfigurationOf (i.e. refer to A with a SHA from B) for tool >>> integration >>> >> e.g. only Configs show up in the catalog. IIUC, one additional >>> constraint >>> >> to >>> >> be aware of (not sure how important it is in practice) is that in the >>> past >>> >> with mcz repos, one could refer to a specific version of each >>> package, but >>> >> now you would only be able to specify a version for the whole git >>> repo. >>> > >>> > >>> > I was about to ask that after reading through Metacello docs — While I >>> find >>> > usefull to define groups and dependencies at package level (I need only >>> > package A from ThatProject on version 2.6, cool!), I didn't understand >>> why >>> > define version at package level.... If many dependencies exists to >>> different >>> > versions of different packages belonged to the same project, doesn't >>> that >>> > means (or is an indicative) that those packages should be separeted in >>> > different projects? I don't think this constraint will be a problem. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Sean P. DeNigris < >>> s...@clipperadams.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> CyrilFerlicot wrote >>> >> >> Now I got lost >>> >> >>> >> A ConfigurationOfXyz was doing two things: >>> >> 1) Declaring the project structure of packages and their dependencies >>> in a >>> >> #baselineXyz: method >>> >> 2) Tagging specific sets of package versions with meaning symbolic to >>> the >>> >> project e.g. 1.2 or stable or whatever >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> CyrilFerlicot wrote >>> >> > So, you just need Metacello to manage the dependencies... This is >>> what >>> >> > BaselineOf do. You just manage the dependencies part and >>> >> > not the versionning part that is already managed by git. >>> >> >>> >> A BaselineOfXyz is very similar to what configurations did for #1, >>> with a >>> >> few simplifications (e.g. you don't need to declare the method a >>> >> "baseline" >>> >> or specify a repo because you obviously already know the repo because >>> >> that's >>> >> where you just got the baseline itself) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> CyrilFerlicot wrote >>> >> > The equivalent of a ConfigurationOf version in now the SHA of a >>> commit >>> >> > or >>> >> > a tag/release >>> >> > of git). >>> >> >>> >> This is mostly true, but ATM you may want to wrap your BaselineOf in a >>> >> ConfigurationOf (i.e. refer to A with a SHA from B) for tool >>> integration >>> >> e.g. only Configs show up in the catalog. IIUC, one additional >>> constraint >>> >> to >>> >> be aware of (not sure how important it is in practice) is that in the >>> past >>> >> with mcz repos, one could refer to a specific version of each >>> package, but >>> >> now you would only be able to specify a version for the whole git >>> repo. >>> >> >>> >> HTH >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ----- >>> >> Cheers, >>> >> Sean >>> >> -- >>> >> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >> >
