Subject: Re: RFC: recommended dependencies (diffs attached)
To: Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Rene Hexel <email@example.com>
Date: 01/08/2004 23:00:39
On 08/01/2004, at 6:52 PM, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Rene Hexel wrote:
>> Comments? Suggestions? Flames?
> Um, nice to have that in pkgsrc, but it seems the wrong approach to me.
> The problem (as I understand it) exists at the level of binary pkgs,
> as such should be put into the pkg_* tools (also?), so there's a
> chance of
> this kicking in in a binary-pkg-only scenario.
I agree that having something on the binary level
might be a good idea as well (see my "INCOMPATIBLE"
keyword in the previous discussion for a possible
solution for that).
Nevertheless, having a consistent, safe default
has been the reason for (ab)using PKGREVISION and
DEPENDS in the past. And rather than endlessly
continuing this discussion (which does not seem
to lead to consensus, it seems), I'd rather
like to separate policy from technical requirements
and have an easy to use (and implement) solution now.
There is nothing that prevents us from extending
it later, if we decide we'd like to record this
extra information in binary packages as well ...