Re: testing, unstable, and dependencies
* Matt Zimmerman
| On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 01:17:22PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
|
| > This could be handled with conditional dependencies, see the old wishlist bug
| > against dpkg in the BTS.
| >
| > Build-Depends: libfoo-dev (>>3)
| > Build-Depends-Cond: unstable -> libfoo-dev (>>4)
| >
| > So maintainers could force unstable-autobuilders to wait for the new
| > libfoo-dev version, and allow all others to build with the old version.
|
| If such a package would build with libfoo-dev (>>3), then it should not
| build-depend on libfoo-dev (>>4). Then there is no problem.
The trend is going with packages named libfoo3-dev and libfoo4-dev
with both providing libfoo-dev. If dpkg had versioned provides, a
package could build-dep on libfoo-dev (>= 3) and it'd Just Work.
However, we don't.
--
Tollef Fog Heen ,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :
`. `'
`-
Reply to:
- References:
- Re: testing, unstable, and dependencies
- From: "Marcelo E. Magallon" <mmagallo@debian.org>
- Re: testing, unstable, and dependencies
- From: guenter geiger <geiger@xdv.org>
- Re: testing, unstable, and dependencies
- From: "Marcelo E. Magallon" <mmagallo@debian.org>
- Re: testing, unstable, and dependencies
- From: Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>
- Re: testing, unstable, and dependencies
- From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>