Explicit requires vs. auto library requires, and fc3/devel versioning

Jeff Sheltren sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu
Sun Mar 20 17:13:38 UTC 2005

On 3/20/05 8:51 AM, "Ville Skyttä" <ville.skytta at iki.fi> wrote:
> apt-get will follow such deps just fine.  If some depsolver doesn't, the
> depsolver needs to be fixed, not worked around in packages.
Strange, perhaps that user isn't pointing apt-get to look at core packages
as well as extras packages - that would explain the error.

> Nobody knows yet.  At least for now, it's ok to use whatever you like,
> as long as you're providing a working FC3->FC4 upgrade path and leaving
> the possibility to provide new package releases for the older distro
> open, again while still not interfering with the upgrade path.  This can
> be trivially implemented eg. by adding a dot and a new ascending number
> to the older distro version's package, for example:
>   foo-1.0-1 imported to FC-3
>   foo-1.0-2 imported to FC-4
>   ...time passes, bugfix to FC-3 (only) is needed...
>   foo-1.0-1.1 to FC-3, subsequent FC-3 releases would be 1.2, 1.3, ...
>   ...etc...

OK, cool.  I like this better than having the 'FC3/FC4' tag.

Thanks Ville and Owen for your responses :)


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list