On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 07:02:47AM +0530, Venky wrote: > > >> 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.... > > Traditionally handled by a "<=" constraint. In this case, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > would > depend on a version of A <= 1. When [EMAIL PROTECTED] is published, it will > not > get pulled in by consumers of package B until the maintainer of > B certifies it with [EMAIL PROTECTED] and published a new package [EMAIL > PROTECTED] with > a constraint on A's version being <= 2.
B cannot know to use such a constraint in the first place, so this will not help. See earlier in the thread. regards john _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
