On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:06 PM, ludo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Jyri Virkki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Danek Duvall wrote: > >> Shawn Walker wrote: > >> > > >> > In my experience, a program often really needs postgres, MySQL, or > >> > Oracle specifically. > >> > >> Well, having functional dependencies doesn't force them to be used > >> inappropriately! > >> > >> If package foo depends specifically on Oracle, its dependency must > >> call that out. You'd only declare a general "database" dependency for > >> packages which work ok with any of them. > >> > > > > I guess I'm just pointing out that I have yet to see a program that > > can work with *any* database. > > > > That's why I've never liked "general" dependencies. > > > GlassFish Java EE 5 Application Server that includes the JPA layer for > example. > To be spec compliant GlassFish bundles Java DB (aka Derby) , but could > use Postgres or MySQL or...
That still kinda proves my point. The databases that would work are only those that GlassFish can use, etc. I suppose it depends on how strictly you apply the rules for saying that a package can provide "database", etc. > I am sure I am missing other examples. I agree there are probably controlled cases where things might work, but I still don't like them. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
