Re: RFC: Package build automation tools (debmake replacement?)
>On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
>>Here's an idea taken from my prototype (which I, BTW, will probably
>>not develop further): give the configuration file format for the tool
>>a version number so that the tool can behave in a backward-compatible
>>manner for old packages, or at the least give a sensible error
>>message. One of the faults of deb-make (no offense, Christoph, I
>>hope?) is that if it was `invisibly' upgraded (for instance, by just
>>running dpkg-ftp every few days and letting it do its thing) it could
>>break packages without warning and without a good explanation of why.
>
>The interface to deb-make was kept compatible
>and breaking of software occurred for bugs and not for upgrades.
Well, a package of mine broke. I'm not saying that it was debmake's
fault, because I didn't care enough to find out--I changed it to a
homegrown package instead of using debstd.
>The interface to a package generation tool must be kept stable. A version
>number might allow some checking to be done but is not something that
>can replace the requirement of a stable interface to the tool.
But it *can* be important. You are saying that bug-for-bug backward
compatibility in a tool is not important? I say that it is. If you
want the new features/bugfixes, increment the version number. If you
don't, then you don't have to do anything, and although it might not
work *better*, it at least won't work any *worse*.
--
Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@pilot.msu.edu> 12167 Airport Rd, DeWitt MI 48820, USA
PGP public key and home page at http://www.msu.edu/user/pfaffben
Reply to: