On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 08:35:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 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.
Not that it's the right solution for this, but it happens to be the ONLY
solution when you need to version a virtual dependancy (IE, multiple
packages can legitimately provide implementations of a specific API, and
the things that use that API don't care which one does, as long as something
is there).
Vis: kernel packages that are tightly coupled with a libc based on them
(which is the case in nearly all of the non-Glibc+Linux world...)
--
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
Debian GNU/kNetBSD(i386) porter : :' :
`. `'
http://nienna.lightbearer.com/ `-
Attachment:
pgpEPD2uRI8ST.pgp
Description: PGP signature