On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:00:09PM -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote: > >>>P.S. We are planning for introducing updates into the Glassfish V3 > >>>repositories, some of which introduce incompatible change that require > >>>multiple packages to be updated at the same time. I was hoping that we > >>>could use incorporations to force the updates to happen in this way. > >>Right now incorporations just specify a minimum dependency; this is a > >>missing feature and will get fixed soon. > > > >When you say "will be fixed", do you mean "allow to specify a maximum > >dependency", as the source seems to indicate, or something else? > > > >If it's the former, then I don't quite understand how incompatible > >versioning is represented in pkg. For example: > > > >glassfish-user is released, depends on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] is released, not compatible > > > >If [EMAIL PROTECTED] can be upgraded into [EMAIL PROTECTED], then > >glassfish-user > >breaks (I'm presuming that at publication time that package has no idea > >that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is going to be released). > > > >Probably the argument is that version 5 needs to be a separate package > >instead, since it introduces incompatibilities? If so, how would the > >system deal with things like "give me glassfish"? Some kind of > >incorporation that matches either [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > By fixed I meant that incorporations will not allow those package > versions to change any portion of the specified version; eg > > depend type=incorporation fmri=pkg:/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > means [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] are ok, but [EMAIL PROTECTED] > and [EMAIL PROTECTED] are > right out... > > A dependency of the type > > depend type=require fmri=pkg:/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > means that [EMAIL PROTECTED] or greater is ok. > > If the publisher of A decides that [EMAIL PROTECTED] will not be completely > compatible w/ previous releases, s/he has several choices > depending on the nature of that incompatibility. > > 1) if the incompatibility is with his own older packages, he can > simply require a minimum optional dependency on the newer version. > Eg, if [EMAIL PROTECTED] depended on [EMAIL PROTECTED], but [EMAIL PROTECTED] > doesn't satisfy [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s requirements > but does satisfy [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s, he can add a optional dependency to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] on [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > thus if B is installed w/ [EMAIL PROTECTED], it must be at [EMAIL PROTECTED] > or higher.
Ah, that makes sense. What about when A's publisher has no idea what "B"s exist (let's say (A)pache)? Will there be a way to say "ALL B's that are dependent on [EMAIL PROTECTED] must be upgraded? thanks john _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
