On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:44:20AM -0700, Philip Brown wrote: > Bart Smaalders wrote: > > > >Clearly, packages being published against older builds must be allowed > >to proceed, along w/ patches, etc. Perhaps a more statement might be > >that packages published against a particular incorporation should not > >depend on any obsolete packages in that incorporation.... > > > > This sounds bad to me. > > If something is compiled against an obsolete package, and wont work > without the contents of that package, then it requires that package > and a dependancy should be declared on it. > > If the problem is "use of an obsolete package", then get them to > stop using the obsolete package and compile against something newer! > Dependancies should be declared accurately, reguardless of whether > the truth is inconvenient or not.
Remember that an "obsolete package" here is one that has no contents. So a dependency on it isn't terribly useful. You can depend on a package that has an obsolete version in its future -- there's no issue whatsoever with that. It's just that if you do that, and the package goes obsolete without replacement, you may end up binding your system if anything else forces that obsolescence to be realized (through an incorporation or whatever). That's what I meant by incorporating an EOFed package as being unfriendly. Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
