On Monday, Jun 9, 2003, at 13:11 US/Eastern, David R. Morrison wrote:

If other packages
have not been required to specify their dependency on gettext-shlibs, things
will break at that stage.

Ummm, if packages depend on a specific version of gettext (like a library dependency does), shouldn't there already be a dependency there? It shouldn't matter if gettext is essential or not.


Of course, apt-cache showpkg gettext shows troubling results.

What happens if:

        1) User installs essential library liba-shlibs-1.0
        2) New liba-shlibs-1.1 is released. Is backwards compatible, so the
           soname need not be changed. However, it adds a new feature
        3) Package foo-0.9 is released, linked against liba-shlibs-1.1
        4) user does "apt-get install foo"

Either foo has a depends on liba-shlibs >= 1.1 or problems result. Whether liba-shlibs is Essential: yes is irrelevant.

(Try an apt-cache showpkg libc6 on a Debian system sometime; a LOT of reverse dependencies will show up, despite libc6 being Essential: yes. At least in Debian policy, if a package needs a specific version of an essential package, it must declare a dependency.)



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: eBay
Great deals on office technology -- on eBay now! Click here:
http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel

Reply via email to