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. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
