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
--
Marcus
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta