Re: Automated package dependencies
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 03:18:18 +1000, rendhalver(a)xemacs.org (Rendhalver [Peter Brown])
said:
i ment why dont we move that loopily required lisp into one package
??
then it would stop the foo requires bar and bar requires foo complications
Because that one package would be the transitive closure of all the loops.
In other words, most of the existing packages would be sucked in like
interstellar debris into a black hole. And don't even SUGGEST that we have
one package for each loop - that becomes even more resource sucking than
a black hole (consider more complicated dependency graphs, such as a figure-8
or a tetrahedon - I think somebody already posted the Gnus/tm/something/something
as being a 4-step loop. Excuse me while I vomit. ;)
Attachments:
- attachment.sig (application/pgp-signature — 226 bytes)