Kyle, the big difference between my proposal and your proposal is that my proposal puts the burden of keeping things straight on the maintainer of the package providing the libraries, and your proposal puts the burden of keeping things straight on the maintainers of other packages.
Under your system, let's say I introduce foo-3.0.0 which is not backwards compatible. Now all of the other developers need to revise their packages immediately, because their packages were saying Depends: foo (>= 2.0.0) but now they need to say Depends: foo (>= 2.0.0 << 3.0.0) See the problem? Under your system, let's say that there is already a package named foo which has binaries, headers and libraries. Now we revise, creating new packages foo-bin, foo, foo-shlibs. Now all of the other developers need to revised immediately, because their packages said Depends: foo but (under your proposal) the new foo only depends on foo-shlibs, not on foo-bin. So if their package actually uses foo-bin, it will break. The second one is what I was trying to address with this recent email. Yes, we want the other developers to revise, but we can't assume they will do so right away. So to *temporarily* put Depends: foo-shlibs, foo-bin into the foo package makes sense to me. Once all other developers have revised, the foo package can be revised to say "Depends: foo-shlibs". -- Dave _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel