On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On ons, 2012-03-28 at 23:00 -0700, Hitoshi Harada wrote: >> I totally agree with Robert's point that one feature is not >> standardized and nobody can tell how you can depend on the feature in >> the end. Mind you, I've never heard about building dependency by its >> name as a string in other packaging system. If you want to introduce >> the concept of version dependency not feature name dependency, do >> *it*; I don't think feature dependency solves it. > > The Python setuptools (a.k.a. distutils a.k.a. distribute a.k.a. eggs > a.k.a. easy_install a.k.a. dont-get-me-started) system supports feature > names that a package can provide, but it uses them for a different > purpose. The idea is that a package "foo" can depend on a package > "bar[somethingextra]", and then bar itself would declare it's > dependencies such that it depends, say, on "ham", but if feature > "somethingextra" is required, it also depends on "eggs". > > This is actually quite useful,
Wow. That is complex, but I agree that it's useful. > but it breaks down when you, say, want to > wrap your egg into a Debian package. *blink* Huh? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
