Dependencies [was: Re: bugs, bugs, bugs!]

[Leonard den Ottolander]

Hello Michael,

> 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).

 Firstly, this splitting up or renaming of packages is a seldom 
occassion. That already significantly reduces the maintainance cost.

 There are two cases in which Requires would change:
1) The package gets split up and the depended on file is moved to the 
new package. (If it is left in the old part nothing changes.) A 
Requires for the new package needs to be added, but this is obvious and 
the maintainer can solve this by once querying the rpmdb. After adding 
the new Requires the maintainer should delete the redundant package 
requirement. This should be obvious since the maintainer was prompted 
by the fact that (s)he needed to add a new Requires. But even if missed 
this can be repaired as soon as spotted. Maybe a redundant package gets 
installed, but in most cases it is probably required anyway.
2) The package is renamed. A Requires for the new name needs to be 
added, and since the old name no longer exists the old name needs to be 
removed. The fact that both steps need to be performed can't be missed 
(unsatisfied and unsatisfiable Requires respectively).

> 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.

 One can use version requirements for package names.

Bye,
Leonard.

--
How clean is a war when you shoot around nukelar waste?
Stop the use of depleted uranium ammo!
End all weapons of mass destruction.