John Levon wrote: >> 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?
An even more pernicious problem is when A's publisher doesn't know B exists, and thus has no idea about compatibility problems... We're still thinking about these aspects of the problem.... -= Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/barts "You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird." _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
