On 23 Aug 2002, Rene Hexel wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 20:56, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
>
> > That's the solution. If "I_Need_This.xml" had the "@keep" attribute,
> > then it would be safe to "pkg_hack -d" the package. As for
>
>   IC -- but bear in mind that in my example, both the old and new
> packages installed "I_Need_This.xml" (which would be perfectly fine
> under the assumption that the new version could be used with older
> dependent packages).
>
> > "pkg_delete"-ing the package, I warn against mixing the raw package
> > tools with the hacked (wrapped) package tools, though of course you
> > can always "pkg_delete -r libogg\*", then rebuild everything.
>
>   Yes I understand.  But what I was saying: if you added that dependency
> (the old foo-SO package being dependent on the new foo package), no
> changes would be required (to pkg_delete).  It would just work out of
> the box.

What happens when you delete the new package and reinstall the old
one? Wouldn't the resulting package recursively depend on itself?

All I can say is, try it, and see how it works. At this time, however,
it doesn't make any sense to me to have components of package "foo"
depend on each other, and the problem you describe doesn't seem to
arise in practice.

Frederick