Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2

[Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 01:42:55PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > 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.

> Good that you mention it because it can't be done with my current
> implementation/syntax...

> Can we make the supposition that in that case all packages providing the
> library have the same version?

Nope.  Have a look at libGL.  (libGL would actually benefit significantly
from symbol-shlibs, because not all of the symbols exported by each of the
implementors are supported by all the others. :/)

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/