Re: Pending setup patches (issue 6)

["Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>]

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> But what about:
>> +    // TODO: free unused map entries
>
> Not a show-stopper.  Setup keeps all kinds of memory chunks around.
> They'll be freed when it exits anyway, it's just cleaner to explicitly
> manage them.

Fair enough.

>> +    // TODO: detect circular dependences
>
> Mmm, I think this one can be done later as an improvement.  Again,
> not a show stopper, just something that will influence the sort order.

Oh, ok, so at the moment, the order of execution of circular dependencies is
undefined? It won't get stuck in a loop, or anything terrible?

>> Also, dependences/dependencies: Both are valid words, but the 2nd
>> seems (to me) more commonly used?
>
> Must be my compiler background...  I'll change it if it bothers
> people.

That would be consistent with elsewhere in setup:

choose.cc:        Dependency *dp = pkg.desired->required;
package_version.cc:class DependencyProcessor {
package_version.cc:  DependencyProcessor (trusts const &aTrust, int
aDepth=0) :
                    deftrust (aTrust), depth (aDepth) {}
package_version.cc:select (DependencyProcessor &processor, packagemeta
*required
                    , packageversion const &aVersion)
package_version.cc:processOneDependency(trusts deftrust, size_t depth,
PackageSp
                    ecification *spec)
package_version.cc:  DependencyProcessor processor (deftrust, depth);
package_version.cc:       changed += processOneDependency (deftrust, depth,
*i)
                    + 1;
package_version.cc:       changed += processOneDependency (deftrust, depth,
*i)
                    + 1;



Max.