On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:50:33 +0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
This exact discussion was most probably offlist. I really see the problem with using ">=". Most of all, I don't see the difference between interpreting old recipes versions as lower bound and a user using BuildInformation and just copy-pasting "Foo x.y", only adding a ">=" (this is probably how "normal" users create their Dependencies file, and maybe they don't add the ">=" part). For the users using the recipe there's still a choice in installing the dependency. > 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). Are the chance on breakage, when compiling from source, that big?! We're talking about compiling here, not installing a binary package. > I prefer keeping the current behavior and fixing recipes that > prove themselves buggy, like GnuPG. > I'd rather go the other way and risk breaking a system or two. The risk is really, really small and a GoboLinux system is never that broken - just remove some symlinks and add some other and your good to go again. Rather that than having Compilation die on me ever so often. Not that it happens that often, I have had it happen to me twice this year (not counting all the times it happened while I was trying to update a recipe), but so far I have never broken my system due to answering yes to upgrade (apart from upgrading glibc, but that's another, old issue). This far we've only heard mine and André's view on this. Doesn't anyone else has an opinion in this? -- /Jonas PS. Reading back I found a note about "--mode=syntax" for CheckDependencies - I still want it. Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
