Re: Bug#504528: libghc6-configfile-dev: Fails to configure: MissingH-1.0.1 doesn't exist
Em Qua, 2008-11-19 às 16:39 -0600, John Goerzen escreveu:
> Joachim Breitner wrote:
> >> Oh drat, you're right. I goofed on that. OK, so this would have been
> >> fine if I hadn't broken my own scheme then, eh? If cabal said just
> >> 1.0.2, it would just work?
> >
> > No, it’s just fine:
> > libghc6-missingh-dev (>= 1.0.2.1), libghc6-missingh-dev (<< 1.0.2.1+)
> > means essentially (== 1.0.2.1), as long as you don’t start to add a 5th
> > digit. So when you upload a new version (with a new cabal version), the
> > old packages become uninstallable until re-built, just as intended.
>
> I think you're missing the point. I *want* it to accept 1.0.2.*,
> because revisions at that level only signify Debian changes. Or would
> have, had I not goofed in .cabal.
This is a case were in two different version the API has not changed,
and it could happen in native and not native packages. I think the best
way to prevent having a too strict dependency for cases like this is
using the Provides field with a hash from the description of the exposed
modules, like was suggested by Joachim.
Greetings.
--
marcot
http://marcot.iaaeee.org/
Reply to: