Subject: Re: When DEPENDS can be upgraded in place
To: Frederick Bruckman <email@example.com>
From: David Brownlee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/08/2000 15:23:08
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, David Brownlee wrote:
> > We have two dependencies - the existing build dependencies, and
> > the 'binary' set.
> > eg: build may be lib>=1.1, and if you build against 1.1 then
> > then binary dependencies are lib>=1.1. But if you build against
> > 1.2 then binary dependencies should be lib>=1.2
> Ahh. That's an idea worth considering. So for dependencies on
> libraries, we would prefer ">=" wildcards to "-*" wildcards?
I would think so, certainly in respect to 'binary' dependencies.
> I'm also concerned about what happens when the library evolves to the
> point where it finally breaks backwards compatability. The only thing
> we can do for that, I think, is to compile a database of binary
> packages which are affected. It's not enough to just remove them from
> the server, because users could have them already on their hard
> drives, or pressed onto a CD.
Hmm - we _could_ create a new package
lib 1.2 -(upgrades_to)-> lib2 2.0, which would allow both old and
new libraries to be installed.
-- www.netbsd.org: A pmap for every occasion --