"Angelacos, Nathan" wrote: > One question, though - What about adding a "Requires" tag? > snort.lrp and tcpdump.lrp may both require libpcap.lrp > newfangledsoftware 2.2.2 with glibc 2.1 requires glibc 2.1, > and might segfault under 2.0.7. > > Maybe there's no way to automate the requires bits of the desc file > like rpm does, but at least the package maintainer could give hints as > to anthing else the new lrp might need.
True dependency checking becomes a nightmare and has to be supported by the package handling scripts. It also sets Charles to talking about new formats :) About all that can be asked for is a "comment-like" tag that package creators use to detail dependencies. Problem with real dependencies are these: * What if that new software requires glibc 2.1, not glibc 2.0? Saying it requires glibc isn't enough. Likewise, suppose it requires libdb v3 or pcap v3.0 - or ncurses v5? * What if that new software requires other software which requires other software which requires....? * What about CONFLICTS... the other side of "dependencies".... A text-based comment-like field is all I'd say we could hope for. _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
