On Tuesday 29 July 2003 04:45 am, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> About using multiple files in a SAR - I don't think it should
> become an ad hoc replacement for package dependencies. If the
> packages aren't distributed separately, that means any update to
> any package's code might require multiple repackaging operations.

But sometimes a package comes in logical pieces that shouldn't be 
distributed separately.

> However, it could give us a packaging solution to the "patch"
> problem I mentioned in another thread. That is, I could distribute
> Garden.sar, which would include garden.mcv and also
> garden_patches.st

I'm distributing StarBrowser and SARBuilder like this:

I have the base package(s) in the SAR. Also, I have the extensions a 
separate members in the SAR.

The extensions are loaded based on their appropriateness: for 
instance, the SARBuilderMC package isn't loaded if you don't have 
Monticello loaded.

The one problem with this is that if you later load Monticello you 
have to go back and load the SAR again to get the SARBuilderMC.

But these packages are not going to be maintained or released 
separately. They're all pieces of the same package.

-- 
Ned Konz
http://bike-nomad.com
GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE