Re: New dependency system.

[Romain Beauxis <toots@rastageeks.org>]

Le lundi 12 octobre 2009 04:53:31, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>   On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:13:50AM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> > It is almost the same thing, but I think it is more clear with a (=
> > ${binary:Version}). 
> > 
> > The main difference, is that in the case of dev -> runtime dependency
> > we can have stronger dependency. As you know, there is a probability to
> > miss some depends due to the hash/limitation in precision. For this
> > deps, we have enough information to set a stronger dependency. 
> 
> OK, so in fact the (= ${binary:Version}) is subsumed by the new
> dependency scheme, but it suffers of the usual limitation of
> checksums. I don't see keeping (= ${binary:Version}) as the obviously
> right solution. For instance, it has the drawback of forcing
> reinstallation even when the ABI (according to checksum) has not
> changed.
> 
> Given that we are relying on ABI checksums anyhow for *inter*-library
> dependency, I don't see why we should get paranoid about their
> incompleteness for *in*-library dependency.
> 
> All in all I'm fore dropping (= ${binary:Version}), what about the
> others?

If this is safe, it seems to me it would be more clean. 

My main concern on this topic was that as it is now, we may have a double 
dependency on the runtime library, which I find a bit weird.


Romain