Re: Automated package dependencies

Ville> On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 01:27, Jerry James wrote: Ville> I like listening, don't consider (equal silence ignorance) :) im here to jerry Ville> Seriously, your efforts are really appreciated, but unfortunately Ville> providing any sensible comments about this stuff is beyond my lisp Ville> knowledge. "Makes sense to me" is about the best I can do :/ thats about my knowledge right now too tho scop is probably ahead of me in the lisp skills Ville> Aren't this kind of cycles automatically dropped? ISTR seeing some Ville> messages about detected and dropped dep cycles somewhere when building Ville> packages. Ah, but that must have been for REQUIRES in Makefiles... Ville> Dunno, but how's about using something like this to prevent it? Ville> (or (featurep 'foo) (require 'foo)) that looks good to me too Ville> Also, if you're building from per-package dirs, could you try if my Ville> patch at [1] affects this in any way? I'm planning to commit the patch Ville> (as well as a corresponding one to unsupported area) tomorrow. Ville> [1] <http://list-archive.xemacs.org/xemacs-patches/200212/msg00089.html> im having one of my radical ideas again this one could solve a few problems and create some more seems like we need to get the lisp these kind of loopy dependancies use into a common package ( xemacs-base ? ) so we can have the packages that require them all point to one package instead of each other in really bizzare ways did that make sense to anyone else ?? think shared lisp library. anyway let me know if you need a less Rendhalver explanation -- XEmacs Advocate | Do not try the patience of Wizards, Gentoo Devotee | for they are subtle and quick to anger. Perl Hacker | - Elric (Technomage) , Babylon 5. Apache God | <mailto:rendhalver at xemacs.org> <GnuPG KeyID: AE51D190>