On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:20:20 +0100, André Detsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There has been passed some months since we changed the interpretation > of old-style dependencies lines for recipes (recipes, not binary > packages). Instead of considering > Program X.Y.Z > as > Program >= X.Y.Z > we started to assume a dependency of > Program > only (forcing the use of explicit ranges in the case a lower limit is > known). > > Some additional info at: > http://lists.gobolinux.org/pipermail/gobolinux-devel/2006-July/001255.html > > Jonas just pointed me that he was not expecting such behavior, since > he was expecting to be able to define limits without relying on newer > versions of Compile/Scripts. > There was no good announcement (if there was none I must have missed it) that it was mandatory to use the new format of dependencies if versions were to be complied with. I also thought that there _might_ be people still using old versions of Compile, which uses Dependencies (and/or old versions of scripts) and I wanted to create as compatible recipes as possible (using new format would break the recipes for them). > Part of the problem of dummy (and annoying) versions inside recipes > was reduced, since there has been already some time since Compile > stopped to automatically update the Dependencies file. As the time > passes, dependencies versions automatically added by Compile at the > old times (and not revised) tend to become less annoying, since there > is a higher probability that the user already has updated the version > of the package anyway (so "Program >= OLD_VERSION" becomes almost the > same as "Program"). > > The question is: > Should we keep dropping the version number of old-style dependencies > lines for recipes? Or should we rollback and interpret "Program X" as > "Program >= X" (like it is being done with binary packages)? > I think so, at least during a transition period. As it's implemented right now many recipe are broken on many systems as they might have an earlier version of the program installed and then CheckDependencies "think it's ok", even if the recipe requires a higher version. In the meantime RecipeLint (GenRecipeStore uses RecipeLint) would give an error if not the new format was used and Compile would use GenRecipeStore to pack the recipe, instead of a single tar operation (the last change I'll implement in a couple of minutes). In a couple of months enough recipes have been updated to drop the compability code (if it's even necesary) -- /Jonas Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
