* David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-17 18:29]:
> On Jul 17, 2004, at 4:26 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> > That doesn't invalidate my point that most of the time, you
> > want to explicitly specify the list of incompatible
> > alternative dependencies you have written your module
> > against.
>
> How does the proposed solution not do that?
Because it would be very silly to have a virtual package for
XML::Parser and XML::LibXML -- they can't be used as drop-in
replacements for one another. It *would* be useful to be able to
say "I have written this module to work with XML::Parser v.$foo
or XML::LibXML v.$bar".
> > As for handling the few cases where it does make sense, can't
> > it be done on the author side of things, such as by having a
> > {DBI,PGP}::Config module or some such? Its version would be
> > bumped when the generic interface is changed, so that one
> > could usefully depend on it.
>
> There's still the issue of making people install one or another
> of the array of possible modules. This is independent of the
> implementation, IMO.
You can depend on DBI::Config v.$foo to indicate "I need a DBD
which understands version $foo of the DBD interface" in that
case.
Regards,
--
Aristotle
"If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
