scsh-hackers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Scsh-hackers] scsh-packages first contact

To: scsh-hackers <scsh-hackers@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Scsh-hackers] scsh-packages first contact
From: Michel Schinz <Michel.Schinz@epfl.ch>
Date: Tue Feb 17 08:10:01 2004
List-id: Discussion among the implementors <scsh-hackers.lists.sourceforge.net>
Sender: scsh-hackers-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Andreas Bernauer <andreas.bernauer@gmx.de> writes:

[...]

> At first glance, the first solution seemed preferable to me, as it
> is easy for the user to understand and easy to implement, as you
> already said. And as long as sunterlib is the only package that is
> rather a "collection-package" of subpackages than a real package by
> its own, I don't see a reason why to put too much effort into the
> install library.

[...]

and Anthony Carrico <acarrico@memebeam.org> writes:

[...]

> This is option I am thinking about too.

Good, at least we are three to favour the first solution, so I'll
implement it soon (tomorrow I hope).

>> (This assumes that every directory contains a copy, or a link, to
>> the files which make up the installation library, but this is a
>> minor detail).
>
> I don't think it is a good idea to copy or link the installation
> library in every subdirectory. I'll load or install the installation
> library before the others.

Absolutely, I will implement it differently than I presented, but I
will try to make sure that installing a sub-package from a master one
is equivalent to installing it separately.

[...]

> Do you think it would be necessary to filter out the particular
> options required by each sub-package?

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you mean by this.

Michel.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>