On Aug 8, 2008, at 5:29 AM, Lars Heill wrote: > >>>> I was wondering if the package names of the components like APR- >>>> util, PHP, which provide drivers/extensions to the databases, >>>> should include the database version info ? >>>> e.g, SUNWapu13dbd-mysql51 , SUNWapu13dbd-pgsql83 >>>> SUNWphp52u-mysql51, SUNWphp52u-pgsql83 > > If there is a technical reason to do so, e.g incompatibilities that > need > to be handled by using different packages, not just to provide > "documentational" > info to the user. Would you agree?
Certainly not merely for documentation, the package name isn't reliable documentation. The dependency needs to be captured in the package dependencies so the correct bits end up on disk when installing it. Now, it's useful to have the package name reflect the intent. Tying it back to this thread, for example looks like SUNWmysql5 was not the best name for the MySQL 5.0 package because it implies the package will contain the line of MySQL 5.* versions over time. But if 5.1 goes into a newly named separate package, the previous one should've been named SUNWmysql50 to begin with, to reflect that. (Knowing that sometimes the intent may fail, if we expect some component to be stable across minor releases but turns out it isn't.. so nothing is perfect. All we can do is understand the upstream component enough to make a solid prediction.)
