On Wed, 06 Jun 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Consider cases where you want to declare that more than one package > > > satisfies the dependency -- we do have libraries using that today in their > > > shlibs. I do think it's necessary here to support the full range of > > > dependency semantics here. > > > Good that you mention it because it can't be done with my current > > implementation/syntax... > > > Can we make the supposition that in that case all packages providing the > > library have the same version? > > Nope. Have a look at libGL. (libGL would actually benefit significantly > from symbol-shlibs, because not all of the symbols exported by each of the > implementors are supported by all the others. :/)
Can you expand? I don't see at all how libgl would "benefit" from this new approach. The current shlibs is already very lax and non-versioned. In shlibs of libgl1-mesa-glx and libgl1-mesa-swx11: libGL 1 libgl1-mesa-glx | libgl1 Only libgl1-mesa-glide3 doesn't follow this scheme: libGL 1 libgl1-mesa-glide3 libOSMesa 6 libgl1-mesa-glide3 I guess that libgl1-mesa-glide3 somehow provides a super-set of the libGL API and this is the justification of the different dependency. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
