Re: [Help-smalltalk] [patch] imply file by filein in package.xml, usually

[Stephen Compall]

On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 09:32 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > This only happens during XML parsing, so the Package protocol is
> > unchanged.  You can short-circuit it with an explicit <file> or
> > <built-file> or <other future allFiles-integrated tag>.  The idea is to
> > simplify description and eliminate common errors for the most common
> > case, in which you want a <file> for each <filein>.
> 
> I'm not sure actually of the patch, though I see what you want to achieve.
> 
> The best thing would be to add fileins automatically to either <file> or 
> <built-file> using something like
> 
>     <filein dist="yes|no">

The extra verbosity would greatly reduce the benefit of implying
anything versus just specifying <built-file> explicitly, e.g.:

  <filein dist="no">something.st</filein>
v
  <filein>something.st</filein>
  <built-file>something.st</built-file>

As built-file is much rarer and is likely to remain so, requiring
explicit specification is not too much of a burden, and is anyway more
self-documenting.

In addition, this flag would close off other types of packaged files.  I
am not sure what those would be, but dare not limit the domain to that
of my imagination at this late hour.  :)

-- 
;;; Stephen Compall ** http://scompall.nocandysw.com/blog **
;;; acolyte of the indirect effect

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part