[erlang-questions] Non-Erlang dependencies

[Anton Lavrik]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Tim Watson <watson.timothy@REDACTED> wrote:
>
> On 28 Jun 2012, at 10:56, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> No actually this is interesting. I *think* I can have a small script in a
>>> get-deps post_hook to fetch the extra dependencies when you get the Erlang
>>> ones. This way you download everything at the same time.
>>>
>>> I'll try it out.
>>>
>
> That will work fine, just don't *declare* them as dependencies, otherwise rebar will puke when it doesn't find an application resource file. There is a patch in the rebar pull request queue which adds support for non-otp (raw, as the author puts it) dependencies, which just get downloaded but not checked for OTP compliance. If you like this feature, please go vote for it as @dizzyd and @tuncer are deliberating at the moment. I'm going to up-vote it (after playing devil's advocate for a while) as I'd like to use deps for both things without messing around with hooks.

It would be great if you up-voted it. Otherwise, your comments to the
pull request could be interpreted as if you were uncertain about it.

In fact, @tuncer told me that he didn't want to make that decision
leaving it to @dizzyd. One of the reasons was because @dizzyd was
going to do some significant internals rework and @tuncer wasn't sure
how this change would fit in.

Unfortunately, @dyzzyd is not being responsive. Does anybody know who
else might be able to make the decision of accepting and merging this
change?