alan buckley wrote:
The problem is the unixlib package and the !UnixLib it installs contains the SharedUnixLibrary module. If you conflict with the unixlib package then all packages that depend on it will be removed when you uninstall it to install the new sharedunixlibrary package. You could have a conflict between gcc4 and the development unixlib package (I'm not sure what its called at the moment UnixLib-Dev?), but not the unixlib package.
No, not at all. You wouldn't get the uninstalls, since you'd provide the dependency - either with a new package, or a "Provides:" field. I don't know if you've used packaging on Linux systems or not, but this is done a lot. But it does have to be done carefully when there are complex dependency setups.
I think it should be camelcase or lowercase, not upper case for all letters.
Well, that really depends. e.g. "GCC", or other acronyms, and it may come down to a matter of taste at the time. One risk here is the issue we already ran into - inconsistent caps are easy to make a mistake with - sometimes the middle caps is a matter of author preference - e.g, "NetSurf". In Debian, enforcing all lower case avoids this, but the complicating factor in RISC OS is a case-insensitive filing system. Perhaps making the package name matching case-insensitive too would be a good move.
I will bear this in mind, and if I get a chance have a more detailed look at libpkg, but it's not likely to happen for a while.
Ok, even if you just came up with a summary for someone else to go on with. _______________________________________________ GCCSDK mailing list [email protected] Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
