Re: New Package Developer
* Junichi Uekawa
| Tollef Fog Heen <email@example.com> scripsit:
| > * Michael Weber
| > | 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. :)
| > Make the package provide ghc5.02.2 and have packages depend on that?
| So that every new release of ghc will break old programs
| compiled against older ghc?
Why is this worse than what the maintainer proposed:
: Basically, you can't. A while back a limitation of ghc
: wrt. libraries has been discovered. In particular, it is only
: guaranteed that a library works with the exact version (plus
: patchlevel) of the compiler it was compiled with. IOW, if it was
: compiled with ghc5-5.02.2-something, the Depends would look like:
: ghc5 (>= 5.02.2), ghc5 (<< 5.02.3)
it will break just as badly.
Tollef Fog Heen ,''`.
: :' :
Unix IS user friendly... It's just `. `'
selective about who its friends are. `-
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com