Closed Quintus closed 13 years ago
Level packages shouldn't need to depend on each other, AFAIK. Can you describe an instance in which such a feature would be optimal?
Can you describe an instance in which such a feature would be optimal?
Packages don't have to consist solely of levels. Maybe someone makes a pure graphic package, containing a bunch of pixmaps others may use in their levels. In this case, it would be more efficient to have the graphics in a separate dependency package rather than much duplicates in more packages. Which brings us to another point. smc-get doesn't check for file conflicts yet... Is this a feature for a later version or a bug?
The dependency thing is not new btw. It has been in the package specification since de9616f, which was the first draft and happened on March 7th. It's not that I'm implementing a new feature in a beta version which would clearly be wrong and had to be delayed until a later release.
Vale, Quintus
Ah, I see. This sounds very useful. I added a new tag to this titled "High-Priority," as this seems to be an important core feature. (As it appears to be a generally broken function as supposed to one that requires certain conditions to be met to function improperly.)
Dependency tracking just doesn't work. If you have a spec containing e.g.
the dependencies aren't taken care of when doing a
smc-get install whatever
, i.e. they aren't installed.ruby 1.9.2p180 (2011-02-18 revision 30909) [x86_64-linux]
Workaround: Install the packages separately until this is fixed.
Valete, Quintus