Re: Automated package dependencies

Valdis> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 03:18:18 +1000, rendhalver(a)xemacs.org (Rendhalver [Peter Brown]) said: Valdis> Because that one package would be the transitive closure of all the loops. Valdis> In other words, most of the existing packages would be sucked in like Valdis> interstellar debris into a black hole. And don't even SUGGEST that we have Valdis> one package for each loop - that becomes even more resource sucking than Valdis> a black hole (consider more complicated dependency graphs, such as a figure-8 Valdis> or a tetrahedon - I think somebody already posted the Gnus/tm/something/something Valdis> as being a 4-step loop. Excuse me while I vomit. ;) ok i think there is some kind of complete misunderstanding on my part probably due to my current lack of explanation skills right now (which is unusual for me) ok im going to try again we have a package called foo and a package called bar foo needs some lisp functions in bar bar needs some lisp functions in foo so instead of having them require each other, which seems like a dependancy nightmare to me, we move the lisp functions that foo requires from bar into a separate package called bob and we move the lisp functions that bar requires from foo in that bob package as well, so instead of foo requiring bar and bar requiring foo foo requires bob and bar requires bob no more weird dependancy problems hence problem solved does that help ?? -- 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>