* Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp> [2002-04-30T01:27+0900]:
> Michael Weber <michaelw@debian.org> cum veritate scripsit:
> >
> > ghc5 (>= 5.02.2), ghc5 (<< 5.02.3)
> >
> > The Debian revision _should_ be negligible. At least that's what is
> > currently believed...
>
> Hmmm.. ?
>
> Why can't it be like "Depends: libghc5.02.2" ?
because there is no libghc* package? And it wouldn't make too much
sense, since the compiler is very tightly coupled to the libs. You
always need many of them for anything even remotely non-trivial, so
why split another package? (package file size and all that...)
Now, why is there no "name-versioned" (like ghc5.02.2) package?
I thought i about it, and decided that it's not worth it. It's big,
there is not much gain between different versions (yet they are still
incompatible), and updating would generally be more complicated.
I decided in favor of a more complicated Depends line at that time,
but if (despite of keeping all the above in mind) there is a
convincing argument for a name-versioned package, please speak up. :)
Cheers,
Michael
--
() ASCII ribbon campaign | Chair for Computer Science II | GPG: F65C68CD
/\ against HTML mail | RWTH Aachen, Germany | PGP: 1D0DD0B9
WWW: http://www.foldr.org/~michaelw/
Attachment:
pgp8rItIeNdwN.pgp
Description: PGP signature