On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:51:27 -0400, Kris Deugau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> (I keep looking at what I've written, and thinking "That's not quite
> right" or "I'm forgetting some critical argument" or "That sounds very
> argumentative/rude but I can't think of a better way to phrase it". I
> *have* gotten an interesting discussion out of this thread, however.)
> Santiago Vila wrote:
>> That's the fundamental mistake I see here: We should not be telling
>> programs what "release" they are running to begin with. We do not try
>> to make packages to work under the assumption that they will run "on
>> a sarge system" or "an etch system". Instead, we try to make them
>> work as far as their dependencies are met.
> ... which means what, exactly, if my program expects
> /usr/lib/apache2/suexec but the system (stock Debian sarge) only has
> /usr/lib/apache2/suexec2?
Seems like you should use the new version, and add a versioned
dependency?
> Or vice versa for etch? (Or more accurately, I need to know in
> advance - in this case, at package build time - which name suexec gets
> so that the Apache config fragment I drop in doesn't break.) OK, so
> if it's one file I can munge in a solution that checks at install time
> or something. What about a case where there are *hundreds* of little
> things like this with complicated subcases?
Again, the dependency system is your friend. Use it.
manoj
--
Having the fewest wants, I am nearest to the gods. Socrates
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
