[Libguestfs] Perl module versioning
Matthew Booth
mbooth at redhat.com
Tue Sep 8 14:30:21 UTC 2009
On 08/09/09 15:20, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> 2. While a version number doesn't guarantee the presence of a feature,
>> it can guarantee the absence of a feature.
>
> I think you may mean this the other way around ...
No, it was just a slightly obtuse phrasing ;) An old version number can
guarantee the absence of a feature. i.e. it can be guaranteed to be
definitely too old.
>
>> So it's still meaningful to say that my program requires version
>> x.y.z, although it may also require other things.
>>
>> 3. When faced with a program not working because feature X is absent, it
>> would be help to know if you need to upgrade to a new libguestfs, or fix
>> the one you've got.
>
> Yeah, I think the RPM dependency issue is a strong point. We must
> avoid installing sets of RPMs which fail.
>
> The alternative to version numbers is some sort of fine-grained
> dependency:
>
> Provides: perl(Sys::Guestfs::Lib::inspect_linux_kernel)
>
> but that's a lot of work.
Yeah, that's definitely not worth it.
> So I think adding a version number to Sys::Guestfs::Lib (which is not
> generated) should help, but not to Sys::Guestfs.
I would also add a version to Sys::Guestfs. As you point out, this isn't
enough to guarantee that it will work, but it can exclude a large class
of cases which definitely won't work. It will also give a much more
useful error in this case.
In practise, given that distributors are unlikely to package libguestfs
without all the features enabled, I would expect it to exclude *all*
cases which don't work.
Matt
--
Matthew Booth, RHCA, RHCSS
Red Hat Engineering, Virtualisation Team
M: +44 (0)7977 267231
GPG ID: D33C3490
GPG FPR: 3733 612D 2D05 5458 8A8A 1600 3441 EA19 D33C 3490
More information about the Libguestfs
mailing list