As announced on Tuesday, I've started to enforce the new validation check related to BuildDependsOnly. I've gotten some complaints about it, so perhaps we need to discuss the situation.
As Dan Macks has pointed out to me, our shared libraries policy does not explicitly require BuildDependsOnly for packages containing headers, but only for the package containing the "main" shared library symlink. I would argue, though, that the smooth operation of fink demands that we tag packages containing headers with BuildDependsOnly as well. As always, the issue is what happens when you upgrade. If the program gets updated, with new headers, then unless you can guarantee that every existing package which has used these headers will continue to compile with the new version (without modification) you are in trouble during a transition period. Some packages will need one version to compile, and some will need another. So we'll want to use Conflicts/Replaces to allow the packages to replace each other, but that mechanism doesn't work if anything depends on the package in question. Perhaps I'm missing something here, so I'd appreciate hearing some discussion on the issue. -- Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by The 2004 JavaOne(SM) Conference Learn from the experts at JavaOne(SM), Sun's Worldwide Java Developer Conference, June 28 - July 1 at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, CA REGISTER AND SAVE! http://java.sun.com/javaone/sf Priority Code NWMGYKND _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
