Re: [Sc-devel] Re: Quarks and svn

[ronald kuivila <rkuivila@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Scott,

  I agree with felix - the binary is the binary.  There are simply  
too many little things that can be changed/fixed
that would then generate minor incompatabilities.  This could turn  
into a distracting administrative burden.

  If svn is part of 10.5 as mentioned earlier, then perhaps it would  
be more effective to work out a script to
validate the sourceforge certificate automatically.

RJK

On Dec 13, 2007, at 8:54 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:

> Also, if somebody adds a new quark then the only way to get it is a  
> new binary + quarks bundle. Shouldn't a package manager be able to  
> let you know if new packages have become available and get them for  
> you?
>
> S.
>
> On 14 Dec 2007, at 01:46, Scott Wilson wrote:
>
> > Hey felix,
> >
> > > I agree.  including a bundle of quarks (that are up to date and  
> > > work with the binary that you just downloaded) is a fine idea.
> > >
> > > expecting those quarks to update is not a good idea.  the binary  
> > > doesn't update, so let's not expect to update the quark either.
> >
> >
> > I thought one of the points of the system is that you could get  
> > easy updates? (I seem to remember some people extolling that as a  
> > virtue...)
> >
> > I would assume anything that is update-able would be tested  
> > against the current point release anyway, or?
> >
> > S.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sc-devel mailing list
> > Sc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sc-devel mailing list
> Sc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-devel