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

Re: RFS: irssi-scripts -- useful collection of scripts for irssi

Hello Frank!

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 12:39:04PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Florian Ernst <florian@uni-hd.de> schrieb:

Checking on Woody won't be necessary, since this package will never
make it to Woody. Or did I misunderstand you here?

Remember backports. Nobody knows when sarge will be released, and since
these scripts are so *useful* ;-), it might be that somebody prepares a
backport for woody. Still it's not mandatory - if you don't provide
versioned dependencies, it's up to the backporter to check. It's just
being friendly to backporters.

Right, I didn't think much about Woody after Sarge was released last
December[1]... oh, wait. (SCNR)

But seriously, I checked the package on current Sarge and Sid and
didn't experience any errors so far.

The old version 10 of this package was backported and is available at
backports.org, but it is missing all the dependencies which cause so
much grief... ;)
On Woody with the irssi-text backport from backports.org everything
worked out of the box now except for libnet-google-perl and
libcrypt-cbc-perl which don't exist in stock Woody. The former exists
as a backport from Adrian Bunk while the latter wasn't backported so
far, thus resulting in two scripts (blowjob and ircsec) with
unsatisfied dependencies.
The semantics have changed in one dependency (xosd-bin, no backport
yet) in a way to render the script osd unusable wih Woody's version,
so I've added a versioned dependency on it.
Thus on Woody (+backports) 3 out of 222 scripts won't run so far.

Unfortunately I also have to admit I've found some more dependencies
of single scripts I missed in the first run, now altogether resulting
in 32 Suggests:... A new version of this package was uploaded.

Also, at least in general, versioned dependencies might be beneficial if
you want to add an optional dependency later. That is, now you have:
Depends: foo, and later, since the newly developed fop is so much
cooler, you'd rather have: Depends: foo | fop. Then you have to check
whether fop really implements yet all of foo's features that are used,
and if all fop versions in unstable did it from the beginning. It's
easier if you just need to compare changelogs of known versions, instead
of testing all possible usages of your program (or all 222 scripts, in
your case).

Point taken, I'll keep that in mind.

Thanks for taking the time,

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce-0308/msg00010.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: