On 11/17/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There was no good announcement (if there was none I must have missed it) > that it was mandatory to use the new format of dependencies if versions > were to be complied with. I also thought that there _might_ be people > still using old versions of Compile, which uses Dependencies (and/or old > versions of scripts) and I wanted to create as compatible recipes as > possible (using new format would break the recipes for them).
For this particular problem, the compile_version variable works well enough, warning that a recipe was designed to a more recent version of Compile. > André wrote: > > The question is: > > Should we keep dropping the version number of old-style dependencies > > lines for recipes? Or should we rollback and interpret "Program X" as > > "Program >= X" (like it is being done with binary packages)? > > > I think so, at least during a transition period. As it's implemented right > now many recipe are broken on many systems as they might have an earlier > version of the program installed and then CheckDependencies "think it's > ok", even if the recipe requires a higher version. In the meantime > RecipeLint (GenRecipeStore uses RecipeLint) would give an error if not the > new format was used and Compile would use GenRecipeStore to pack the > recipe, instead of a single tar operation (the last change I'll implement > in a couple of minutes). In a couple of months enough recipes have been > updated to drop the compability code (if it's even necesary) For new recipes, I think it's better to use ">=", "=", etc. explicitly and use the "compile_version" variable to instruct users to upgrade. -- Hisham _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
