Squeak as Linux and other threads
Stephen Pair
stephen at pairhome.net
Thu May 22 17:12:43 UTC 2003
goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Stephen Pair <stephen at pairhome.net> wrote:
>[SNIP]
>
>
>>It's important to note that the "requires" clause in my notation is
>>simply a name...the requirement is not tied to an specific package or
>>package name...it is only a name. It's the configuration that
>>determines what package and version will actually get used to satisfy
>>the "requires" clause.
>>
>>
>
>Hmmm. It is nice that you agree with this simple model (no boolean
>algebra, no >= etc, not having this info inside the package, ability to
>have multiple configs).
>
>But what are the advantage of these names and these requires clauses? I
>would like to understand that.
>
In order to enumerate the advantages, I have to know what I'm comparing
it against. How else would you declare that a package has a
prerequisite? It is these names that *do* appear within a package
version. It is the configuration that binds these names to specific
versions of specific packages. You have to have some way of declaring
that a dependency exists (and you need to allow the list of dependencies
to change from version to version).
For example, KomServices 1.0 has a prerequisite called
"DynamicBindings"...based on feedback I've received, I'm going to remove
that pre-requisite in version 1.1 of KomServices. Therefore, I need a
way of specifying that version 1.0 does have this prerequisite called
"DynamicBindings", whereas version 1.1 does not. The name of a
pre-requisite is arbitrary...I didn't have to call the pre-requisite
"DynamicBindings"...I could have called it whatever I wanted...the point
is that there exists this notion of a prerequisite to something that
provides dynamic bindings like functionality that exists in 1.0 and is
being removed in 1.1.
- Stephen
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|