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. > And just to be clear, I wasn't expecting the package when published > to depend on a file - I was expecting the dependency to be published > as on a package, just making the packaging system determine the > correct package to list when the package is built based on the file > name, instead of requiring it to be done by the developer when > creating the package definition and then having to update it when > packages are renamed/refactored (and clearly listing what part of > that package is depended on so you don't have to re-track that down > when a package is split to determine which half it depends on). > > The packaging system already does this behind the scenes for all the > libraries an ELF binary links against - I was just asking to extend > this to other forms of dependency. > > _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
