Re: Versioning fast-development libraries (call for help with debtags packaging)
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 08:35:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield <email@example.com> was heard to say:
> On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 08:59:19PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 01:36:10PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> > > Is there some more restrictive versioning and dependancy scheme I could
> > > use? I tried setting shlibs so that packages would depend on =version
> > > instead of >=version, but that seems to be a bit too restrictive.
> > Nice folks in IRC suggested me to Provide: libtagcoll-api-1.0 and
> > Depend: libtagcoll-api-1.0, then change the virtual package depend when
> > the API/ABI changes.
> > It's a solution that I like very much and I want to post it here for the
> > records.
> This is a very bad idea, because it destroys versioned
> dependenies. And it's in violation of policy.
In addition, it confuses users. I get periodic bug reports about
aptitude being uninstallable, when in fact the user is using the wrong
apt version for some reason.
/-------------------- Daniel Burrows <firstname.lastname@example.org> -------------------\
| You are in a maze of twisty little signatures, all alike. |
\-Evil Overlord, Inc: planning your future today. http://www.eviloverlord.com-/