-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:41:09 +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
On systems lacking a complete package database to query, the
explicit
naming of the depended on packages would solve the problem of unknown
dependencies. Splitting a package and moving a library to a new package
would possibly leave a redundant package requirement in a depending on
rpm, but the requirement for the library would be still available. If a
package maintainer did miss such a library split the redundant package
requirement would most probably not harm and be updated as soon as
spotted.
Consistently mentioning both the required packages as well as the
libraries would make the rpm db system more self-contained and probably
solve a lot of dependency problems.
For some packages such a list of explicit requirements can get
pretty long and would require an extra maintenance effort. For
instance, not only when depending packages are renamed or when the
dependencies of a package change (user would install redundant
stuff). But also when a particular version of a library is found
only in a particular package revision. We should rely on tools which
solve the dependencies for us and which find out what package to
install to get libfoo.so.3.
On systems lacking a complete package database to query,
... there should be an alternative way like querying a remote
package database server.
- --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/J6N10iMVcrivHFQRAjV/AJ9m7yl3VZV93Kd1pZ8k5D+W8q4TowCggbjz
M46F+X1niiBvufAUXO6IjtU=
=atjA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----