About MC for managing the image
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Sun Sep 18 21:02:25 UTC 2005
Avi Bryant wrote:
[... snip ...]
> Within that pool of definitions, package boundaries are unknown and
> ignored. The load order is determined for the pool as a whole, using
> the rules I mentioned earlier. So if you throw a whole bunch of
> packages into the pool, it will figure out a load ordering at method/
> class granularity, rather than at package granularity.
Thanks. That explains it, and I can see why this would be useful in
particular in a situation where things get moved between various packages.
> What I'm proposing and Daniel is working on is that we modify
> MCConfiguration to use this mechanism rather than an explicit load order.
How hard would it be to have this governed by a preference to begin
with? I would like to find out whether a) this solves the problems Stef
was seeing (the way I understand it they should) and b) what effect it
would have if I just do a full update of Tweak using that mechanism
(e.g., try to find out if would break on any of the updates we've put
out so far).
More information about the Packages