[m-dev.] New release?

Julien Fischer jfischer at opturion.com
Mon Oct 26 11:44:21 AEDT 2015

On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Zoltan Somogyi
> <zoltan.somogyi at runbox.com> wrote:
>> My proposal is attached. At the moment, it is a description
>> of an approach, with some details missing, because it makes sense
>> to work out those details only if there is agreement on the basic
>> approach. I intend this proposal to start a discussion on its approach.


> 3. With the current installation method you don't want to install too
> many grades up front because of the installation time, so this is
> closely connected with 2. But incremental installation - something
> that was mentioned a while ago - would break this connection,
> therefore installation time is a separate problem.

For the record, I did post a diff that allowed incremental installation
of library grades (on most platforms) here:


> While I agree with the approach for problem 1, including a
> comprehensive and systematic form of command-line options, I'd also
> like to see something even higher-level. For example, a --feature
> option that chooses features such as mdb debugging, profiling, etc.
> The additional challenge for such constraints would be in providing an
> explanation of what to do if they are not satisfiable.
> There ought to be a correspondence between the command-line options
> and the features that are referred to in pragma require_feature_set,
> since the concepts being expressed have much in common. This is why I
> suggested the above option. I think it is also worth considering
> whether the pragma should be extended to cover your proposed form of
> command-line options.

If such a correspondence is made, then we should also support the
command line options --libgrades-{exclude,include}-feature in addition
to the existing --libgrades-{exclude,include}-component.


More information about the developers mailing list