On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 03:18:27AM +0530, Venky wrote: > Treating file-based dependencies as first-class citizens does so > much more.
I think that's explicitly been ruled out. > There are two separate possibilities you mentioned here: > > > your repository could host meta-data for pkgs otherwise not hosted > > there > > That wouldn't really work. If I am maintaining a "mutt" repository, > I could not really be bothered keeping track of every single > sendmail-alternative around (postfix, qmail, exim, msmtp, > nullmailer,...) and replicating their meta-data. Why host a repository for one package only? > > or your client could query multiple repositories > > That's precisely what I'm saying. Just that, in this case, the > server can't do anything much about resolving dependencies at > publication time. My client will query my list of authorities and > that could be different from what your client queries. That's fine. > > This non-pkg dependency -> pkg dependency resolution feature is nothing > > more than an aid to package construction/publication. > > But it could be so much more. It could actually be a true > dependency when the files being depended upon are stable interfaces. Maybe. See abvoe. _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
