On Friday 14 September 2007 12:23:39 Stefan Hundhammer wrote:
But since we are really inconsistent with our handling of byte code, exactly what's the difference? I could understand that concern if we byte-compiled everything. But we don't. We have more checks (due to byte compilation) for some code (the modules) and less checks for other code. Both kinds of code will affect the customer: If any does not work due to syntax errors, the customer will get a show-stopper (one or some YaST apps won't work for him).
I would prefer investing the time of making ycp compiler compile on the fly, on making existing interpreters work good with yast.
There are different approaches and different tools for that. Some developers simply hope they won't ever have to do it. That's OK for purely leaf packages. Other developers never leave their private sand box and simply never do "svn up" because when they do they are in big trouble.
There are projects much bigger than YaST, with much more complicated dependencies. People don't suffer the pain we do. What patterns I saw in projects like KDE codebase - policies for commiting changes on interfaces certain days only (ie: every monday the API breaks for trunk) - use of stuff like y2makeall (kdesvn-build).
Some use tools like "y2makeall" which essentially recreate much of autobuild's internal logic, including carefully hand-crafted exception rules to manually throw out cyclic or broken (sic!) dependencies.
I think allowing y2make all to link against in different locations is enough. For most YaST development you will use the system libraries. There are exceptions: - libzypp - dbus - hal - partitioning libs etc. Those should be recognized by y2makeall. Christian Kornacker is working on that. support for --libzypp-prefix will be added soon. Note, this also means y2makeall will build the complete YaST in a prefix. Duncan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help@opensuse.org