[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: JOEL BAKER, STOP TELLING PEOPLE TO DEPEND ON LIBC-DEV *INSTEAD* OF LIBC6-DEV



On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 04:41:22PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On Monday 14 October 2002 16:03, Joel Baker wrote:
> >
> > 2) Is this a libc6 special case, or would it be just as acceptable to list,
> > say, "libc12-dev | libc-dev"?
> >
> 
> Policy 7.4 states:
> 
> If you want to specify which of a set of real packages should be the default 
> to satisfy a particular dependency on a virtual package, you should list the 
> real package as an alternative before the virtual one.

However, as read, this would make little or not sense as to why one cannot
(or even should not) use libc-dev instead of libc*-dev unless you need a
versioned dependancy - since all libc*-dev should Provide: libc-dev, and
there should be exactly one that applies to any given arch, there is no
"preference" that would make any sense for all arches.

> I seem to recall this being more of a "packages which depend on virtual 
> packages should do this" but either my memory is blurry or the text changed.

It's certainly a good 'should' when it makes sense. I assert that *iff*
that is the only reason, however, it does not make sense in this case. But
Branden's message certainly seemed to say it's more than a 'should', but
rather, a 'must' - since failing to have a real dependacy in front causes
failure to install.

> If you run lintian --info on your package it should give you:
> 
> W: virtual-package-depends-without-real-package-depends
> Ref: policy 7.4
> The package declares a depends on a virtual package without listing a
> real package as an alternative first.

And that's a "Warning", which would match the 'should' clause in 7.4, which
all makes sense - until you throw in Branden's claim that this utterly
breaks installation. What I'm asking is why, if Policy 7.4 says 'should'
and if there is no rational default for selecting a 'real' version in the
presence of more than one (which should never happen in the first place, in
this particular instance), installation breaks.
-- 
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com              http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

Attachment: pgp6PMlKhBgi9.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: