On Thursday, January 2, 2003, at 10:49 PM, Ben Hines wrote:
OK, I guess I should have been more specific. If, in the future, fink is able to remove multiple packages in the same way apt is, what is wrong with having a dev depend on a dev?On Thursday, January 2, 2003, at 03:23 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:You don't agree with the ability to have multiple versions of libraries installed, and to build against them? Why the hell not? Cause thats what you are saying.. I think its one of the best features of fink. It would REALLY SUCK if we could not easily use both libpng and libpng3, and we wouldn't be able to if everyone depended on "libpng".work. Then it was pointed out that you're not supposed to depend on -dev packages so I removed it (which in this case, I don't agree with, but what the hey). =)
There are reasons for these things, its not arbitrary.. your deps on qt3-dev broke your own package qt2 even.
So, I have, say:
qt3 is a bundle package that depends on all qt3 packages, including qt3-dev.
arts-dev depends on qt3-dev.
kdelibs3-dev depends on arts-dev.
Then, when someone needs to build against qt2, it would remove qt3-dev, qt3, arts-dev, and kdelibs3-dev, and install qt2-dev.
When someone needs to build against kde again, it would remove qt2-dev, and reinstall kdelibs3-dev, arts-dev, and qt3-dev.
As it is now, any package that depends on kdelibs3 and kdebase3 also needs to know it depends on 13 other developer packages that kde uses, when they don't really care. Package foo shouldn't need to know it needs libart2-dev (or whatever) to properly link against, kde, kde's dev package should be able to say so.
That's what I meant...
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Fink-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-users
