On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > So it is completely legal in fink to go ahead and upgrade a package > (gmp-4.3.0, ppl-0.10.1 and fftw3-2.3.1) which has bumped the > compatibility level but not the major soversion number
Yes, completely legal. > as long > as you insure that all packages that BuildDepend/Depend against these > have been updated to require the newer version? That is not necessary. If the upstream maintainers are doing things correctly, the new version of the library will continue to work with old packages. > My recollection is > that there was a concern that this was a mistake upstream Sometimes the upstream packagers make mistakes and should have bumped the major soversion when they didn't. But unless you have a reason to believe that is the case, you should assume that the compatibility is correctly measured by compatibility_version. > Regarding the additional functionality in fink, are you referring > to the missing library dependencies in dpkg (where a deb knows > explicitly > all of the specific libraries that its shared libraries and > executables > are linked against) such that attempting to remove a package that has > shared libraries that some other packages files need will flag an > error > (no matter if the dependencies aren't stated in the info file)? My > understanding > was that was extremely difficult to implement on darwin because of the > explicit path information (rpath?) used in linking. Not extremely difficult, just different than Debian. We have a way to do it, but nobody found the time to fully implement it. -- Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
