On 8/15/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An old issue that I just encountered, is that depencencies in the old format > "Foo x.y" is interpreted as just "Foo" while it really should be interpreted > as "Foo >= x.y" imo. In my case it was the GnuPG recipe that listed > "LibAssuan 1.0.2", while I had 1.0.0, which made configure die when it > didn't find a version of that library that matched the prerequisite. We > still have some hundred recipes in the store, which have the old dependency > format and I cannot guess how many of those that are broken because of not > using the version given as a lower limit.
This has been discussed in the past (offlist, perhaps) and André decided for the current behavior. IIRC his rationale was that the ">=" behavior would force too many unnecessary upgrades as the recipe writer is usually beyond the lower bound of the recipe. And every upgrade is an additional chance for something to break, so we went the conservative path there. If the new app you're installing fails to build, that's a lesser problem than breaking something that was working before because of a dependency (I know, in an ideal world recipes would be perfect and things wouldn't break, but you know what I mean). I prefer keeping the current behavior and fixing recipes that prove themselves buggy, like GnuPG. > For recipes some fuzz with regard to version is ok, so using the version as > least possible would probably be better than just removing it. For binary > packages that still have their dependencies in the Dependencies file and > does not have a BuildInformation file (does such packages still exist) the > version should be interpreted as required, i.e. '='. I think it is. Either "=" or ">=", I'm not sure, he can confirm. But I remember André talking about using different meanings for the old syntax in recipes and packages. -- Hisham _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
