2008/6/3 Alexander Vlasov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> Alexander Vlasov wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> dependency on file is TERRIBLY wrong idea. Anyone who maintained big >>> enough set of RPM-based linuxes can confirm this. >>> >> >> And for those of us fortunate enough to not have done this, can you >> explain why? >> > > Some reasons are already described in my mail to Michal (see the > thread), but I can extend some thought here: > Maintainer selects name for package knowingly. If he gives some name and > "provides" metadata to the package, he does it because he is sure this > package really does what it should. > Contrary, third-party developers are not aware of situation in the > distribution and can give their tools/libraries any name they want; > presuming their product satisfies some distribution requirements a bit > optimistic. And even more: sometimes it's possible to build bits from > source code in a different ways, and some variants will be ok for > particular task, some will not. > php can be built as apache module or apache2 module, but they are not > interchangeable.
Since the dependency could be resolved at publish time (i.e. the file dependency is resolved to a package name at that time), I don't think those concerns apply. As for your elf example given earlier, that's why ips has elf analysis logic, from what I understand. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
