On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 10:24:28AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 10:07:34AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > Yes, here we are speaking about _build-dependencies_, and i have thought > > a bit more bout it, and it seems to me that this is really only needed > > in build dependencies, and thus only for the -dev packages (for build > > dependencies). > > Uhm, no the problem is not only for build dependencies, but also for > normal dependencies. > Example: pxp build-depends on netstring, rebuilding netstring with a > different interface will cause pxp to become unusable. Even if pxp has > the right build dep on an old version of netstring installed pxp package > doesn't violate dependencies. > > I want that a new version of netstring will be uninstallable > contemporary to a version of pxp built against a different netstring > version. > > This is really similar to the virtual ocaml-3.06 package, we have both > build-dependencies on ocaml-3.06 _and_ normal dependencies on > ocaml-3.06.
<... rest snipped ...> Ok, yes, sure, i was thinking in the case of debian packages only, sorry. Sure, we should have both a build and a normal dependency, but only for libraries, for apps, there would only be a build dependency (as normal, maybe unversioned), and a dependency on the the versioned .so package. > Regarding the .so I've still to finish reading Sven's mail ... Ok, take your time, i think this one is ok, altough we could see if we could make use of some kind of so version in the libraries. Friendly, Sven Luther
