Subject: Re: Depending on a particular version of an emulation package
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Dieter Baron <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/31/2007 12:21:36
In article <46AE5889.email@example.com> Johnny wrote:
: > We probably want to add a way to differentiate the two. Perhaps
: > include the EMUL_PLATFORM in the PKGNAME?
: This is a variant of the problem of trying to depend on a package with a
: particular set of PKG_OPTIONS (I might have implemented EMUL_PLATFORM as
: a package option, and in practice, it acts just like one).
: I think that solving the problem on the "install-from-pkgsrc" side is
: fairly easy, but the same problem on the binary package side is somewhat
: harder. If we require a binary package to be completely standalone,
: then we must be able to (quickly) determine what PKG_OPTIONS it was
: built with, without needing to unpack the binary package.
Query the pkg_summary? I think in the long run encoding all
information we need to know about a binary package in the file name
will be too limiting. I think the file name should uniquely identify
a package (variant), but need not provide all the information about
it. (See the options tags proposal in my recent mail.)