Re: Moving the packages repo and converting to Mercurial
Marcus Harnisch <marcus.harnisch(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Michael Sperber <sperber(a)deinprogramm.de> writes:
> #2 is more attractive from a design perspective, and it's what I'd like
> to do.
Agreed. But is there a good way to express package dependencies? Or will
we have to resolve these manually. Won't #2 lead to something like this
anyway:
$ make
<dependency error>
$ hg pull <package>
$ make
<dependency error>
$ hg pull <package>
$ make
<dependency error>
^%#^&^&!!!!
$ hg pull <all packages>
$ make
Well, the idea is that you only fiddle with indidvidual packages when
you're doing development on them - that's when the subrepos really help.
Mercurial does manage a consistent state for the package
subrepositories, much as a single repository would. So when you're just
trying to build, you should pull all packages.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta