Danek Duvall wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:44:20AM -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
This sounds bad to me.
If something is compiled against an obsolete package, and wont work
without the contents of that package, then it requires that package
and a dependancy should be declared on it.
If the problem is "use of an obsolete package", then get them to
stop using the obsolete package and compile against something newer!
Dependancies should be declared accurately, reguardless of whether
the truth is inconvenient or not.
Remember that an "obsolete package" here is one that has no contents. So a
dependency on it isn't terribly useful.
But it should have metacontents, in that it should pull in something that is
guaranteed to be binary-compatible with the original, as a dependancy, i
would hope.
That, is useful.
...That's what I meant by incorporating an EOFed package as being unfriendly.
no argument to it being "unfriendly".
But if it wasnt *neccessary*, surely they would compile and package against
something that is not obsolete.
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
