Subject: Re: When DEPENDS can be upgraded in place
To: Johnny C. Lam <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David Brownlee <email@example.com>
Date: 09/08/2000 15:25:57
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Johnny C. Lam 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
> Well, when the gettext package was reworked to build a shared library,
> all dependent packages had to upgrade their dependency on gettext to
> at least the version with the shared library. And when freetype-lib
> was updated to a version with a new major number on the shared lib,
> all dependent packages were reworked to build with and depend on at
> least the version with the new major number.
Did is still install a static library as well as shared - if
not then updating of all dependent packages was needed anyway,
if not, then 'binary dependencies' having different
characterestics to build dependencies would work.
> We could extend this to every time a package with a shared library
> gets updated, then all dependent packages need to be changed to depend
> on at least the updated package. This would solve the problems form
> binary package users, but would be a slight pain to package builders
> who need to constantly chase new versions of packages.
And also pain for users compiling from source.
-- www.netbsd.org: A pmap for every occasion --