Re: New dependency system.
On 12-10-2009, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
> 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 (=3D
>> ${binary:Version}).=20
>>=20
>> 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.=20
>
> OK, so in fact the (=3D ${binary:Version}) *is* subsumed by the new
> dependency scheme, but it suffers of the usual limitation of
> checksums. I don't see keeping (=3D ${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.
>
I think it is a bit dangerous to have libX-ocaml v1.2 fullfill the
dependencies of libX-ocaml-dev v1.3 if there is nothing detectable in
the ABI checksum.
Moreover, you must also take into account that we will not have 1 but 2
dependencies foreach native package (libX-ocaml-dev-byte-WWWW and
libX-ocaml-dev-YYYY). We must separate byte and native dependencies.
This will also add 2 dependencies for intra-dependencies. With
binary:Version we just get 1 deps (+ version).
I must also admit that even if I found the system well working, I prefer
to keep things as much as possible look likes old/other Debian packages.
The -XXXX digest extension is to my mind only allowed by exception, if
we can avoid using it, we should (but this is Zack that has
negociated this, so I don't know the real extent of the exception).
Call me conservative ;-)
Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall
Reply to: