Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 08:14:18PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:02:59PM -0400, Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >  #363133
> >  Would it be worthwhile to support multiple symbols on one line to
> > save even more space?
> > symbol [symbol...] dependencies...
> It would be much more worth to drop the package name from the
> dependencies. Except a few corner cases (which could probably be
> worked around some other way), they are always the package name
> inside which the library is...
> The >= is also questionnable. Are there different relationships used
> there ?
Consider cases where you want to declare that more than one package
satisfies the dependency -- we do have libraries using that today in their
shlibs. I do think it's necessary here to support the full range of
dependency semantics here.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.