Re: Doubts about PHP
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 02:29:23PM +0000, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > First of all, this is not an instance of saying php (>= 4) instead of php
> > (>= 5); this is saying php5 | php4 | php4-cgi vs. php5. If it were simply
> > the case of getting the versioning right on a single versioned dependency, I
> > would agree with you, but alternative dependencies do come with some cost.
> > First, they add complexity to dependency resolution, which when compounded
> > can cause problems for aptitude and britney.
> so this applies to all packages.
> in particular, like a lot of package management decisions, it could impact
> the ability to scale down ?
> > Second, particularly in the
> > case of php applications, maintainers almost never correctly express the
> > package's real dependencies. For instance, if a package requires "php with
> > mysql support", this often gets expressed as "php5 | php4, php5-mysql |
> > php4-mysql", but that relationship is satisfied by combinations of packages
> > that may not be usable together for the target application -- e.g., it's
> > satisfied by php5 + php4-mysql, but php4-mysql's own dependencies are
> > satisfiable by phpapi-$foo which is provided by php4-cli, so you can install
> > these packages together and satisfy your web app's dependencies without
> > having a usable pairing.
> would it be practical to get a lint to pick up this kind of thing ?
> (might be a good idea anyway)
It's not something that I would consider it a priority to work on, in the
case of existing packages; I'm just pointing out why adding "| php4" for new
packages isn't necessarily a good answer.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.