On Feb 25, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:
On Feb 25, 2006, at 9:48 AM, David R. Morrison wrote:
However, there are some pairs of packages (dclib0 and valknut come
to mind) which have been set up so that one depends on a precise
version of another. It seems to me that these would be completely
impossible to update with the strict checking you are discussing,
right?
There are actually two solutions for tightly-bound packages like this.
1. If we tell dpkg to install both of them at the same time (dpkg -
i foo.deb bar.deb), then everything's great. Fink usually does this
if they're "relatives", such as a parent and its splitoff, or two
splitoffs of the same parent.
2. Even if we don't tell dpkg to install both at once, the SysState
algorithm will figure things out in the simple cases, when
upgrading the depender fixes things. For example, say you have foo-
shlibs-1.0-1 and foo-dev-1.0-1 installed with the usual Depends:
foo-shlibs (= 1.0-1). If you try to install foo-shlibs-2.0-1,
SysState will figure out that foo-dev needs to be upgraded as well.
Right. In both of your examples, the packages are splitoffs of the
same parent, and its clear how to make SysState handle such a situation.
However, in the case of the gettext upgrade (which also involved the
package libgettext3-shlibs), and the valknut/dclib0 example, the
packages in question aren't splitoffs of the same parent. Could we
think of a mechanism to notify SysState that these packages should be
considered 'as a unit'?
-- Dave
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
