Re: CMSP 16. Binary Package Dependencies

2009-10-22 Thread David Golden
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Zbigniew Lukasiak zzb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi there, I've noticed two reactions to this proposal: it is great if it could be done right and it is currently too difficult.  This leads me to following: how about a lib_requires (or requires_lib) - with identical

Re: CMSP 16. Binary Package Dependencies

2009-10-22 Thread Damyan Ivanov
-=| David Cantrell, Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 02:03:50PM +0100 |=- lib header (this should probably be renamed to inc, with an alias for sdrawkcab compatibility) Note that as well as having a library, you need to have the C header file so you can build stuff against it. Also,

CMSP 16. Binary Package Dependencies

2009-10-09 Thread David Golden
16. Binary Package Dependencies Proposal: Add a binary dependency keyword to be optionally resolved by the shell. eg. binary_requires: - linux-debian: libgif4-dev: 4.1.6 - linux-ubuntu: libgif4-dev: 4.1.6 - linux-redhat: giflib-devel: 4.1.6 - freebsd-ports:

Re: CMSP 16. Binary Package Dependencies

2009-10-09 Thread Graham Barr
On Oct 9, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote: * David Golden xda...@gmail.com [2009-10-09T07:49:40] 16. Binary Package Dependencies No vote, but highly dubious that it could be done in a way we won't regret later. I agree. Graham.

Re: CMSP 16. Binary Package Dependencies

2009-10-09 Thread Steffen Mueller
David Golden wrote: 16. Binary Package Dependencies If we could get this right, I'd give all my votes for this. I know that at least Adam and I had been thinking hard about this kind of thing in a different context a few years back. It's utterly hard to get right if at all possible.