Re: Archive unification progress

[Stepan Kasal]

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 03:18:34PM +0100, Peter Simons wrote:
>  > If we get a unified format and archive, can we look at
>  > dependencies as a second phase?
> 
> Dependencies are inherently coupled with the notion of
> packages, IMHO. Since we don't have packages at all right
> now, I think it's a good idea to postpone that topic.

I wouldn't try to use a macro from a file alone, I'd put the whole
file in my m4 subcirectory.
OTOH, I'd expact that such file is self-contained and can be used
alone, without more hassle.  As an exception to this rule, I'd expect
that a file may require putting other files to m4/ too.

As you see, I'd intuitively treat individual files as ``packages,''
expectind the dependencies to work on this level.

So I think it might be convenient to think about files as about packages,
at least for now.  This would enable us to define dependencies right now.

Have a nice day,
        Stepan