Forum .LRN Q&A: Dependency Tree

Collapse
Posted by Al Guyer on
In the process of trying to get the attendance package to run,
http://www.openacs.org/forums/message-view?message%5fid=397909

I was introduced to the cvs "HEAD", I think...
cvs -z3 -d :pserver:mailto:anonymous@cvs.openacs.org:/cvsroot co openacs-4/packages/{package-name}

Kind developers directed me to use cvs commands to download packages:
cvs -z3 -d :pserver:mailto:anonymous@cvs.openacs.org:/cvsroot co openacs-4/packages/attendance
cvs -z3 -d :pserver:mailto:anonymous@cvs.openacs.org:/cvsroot co openacs-4/packages/dotlrn-attendance

With those two package installed the attendance package(s) loaded but upon
use proceeded to give server errors. After looking at the error, it lead me
to believe that ecommerce needed to be installed. When attempting to install
ecommerce, the dependencies continued to build until eventually it was necessary
to install acs-content-repository 5.2.0d7; acs-kernel 5.2.0d7, which apparently
are a different version from the dotLRN tarball, 2.1.3.

It seems apparent that one cannot just wander through the repository and just
start installing what ever suits their fancy, which I tried. :)

I was able to successfully corrupt my system to the point of needing a wipe
and rebuild. This is more than fine because I am still in the research phase.
Also, of course, I could restore it had I actually backed it up ahead of time. :)

So here's the question... is there some sort of offical dependency tree? While
trial and error is entertaining it can be rather time consuming.

Thanks,

-al

Collapse
2: Re: Dependency Tree (response to 1)
Posted by Al Guyer on
...so that's what "HEAD" stands for:
(from CVS(1) man page)

"HEAD refers to the most recent version available in the repository"

Is it considered "bad form" to cvs co the root of openacs-4/packages/?

Collapse
3: Re: Re: Dependency Tree (response to 2)
Posted by Carl Robert Blesius on
In general it is not a good idea to run production software from HEAD unless you know what you are doing (and it is still probably a bad idea unless you are using one of the more modern source control packages and you are a bulldog).

I had a similar experience once trying to get something very new running on an old version of Red Hat box. I got dependency spaghetti all over myself and ended up bleaching the Red Hat right out of that machine (I heart Debian: apt-get rocks).

I asked Hamilton to help remove unneeded dependancies in dotlrn-attendance (I would like to get attendance compatible with oacs-5-2 and why it would need dotlrn-ecommerece is a mystery to me). I hope Hamilton can help us out here (and you have some bulldog in you and are willing to eventually try again).

Collapse
4: Re: Dependency Tree (response to 1)
Posted by Al Guyer on
so-o-o, HEAD is where the developer gods play... us mere mortals should stick with released tarballs, and the repository, at least for our production servers. Got it!

I run the Gentoo! distro on all my linux boxes, so I am more than use to breaking things. :)

Thanks for your help,

-al