Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf.de...@gmail.com> writes: >>> 2) Tagging package relationships instead of packages means extending >>> the syntax of package relationsships, trusting the binary packages to >>> get the depends right >> You'll have to do it sooner or later. At least for already mentioned perl, >> python and others. Or no? > > Yes, but how many are there. Perl for example has 2627 reverse > depends. How many of those are plugins? Don't matter. If even there is literally one package, the new syntax has to be defined. Once you add it, it doesn't matter - one package uses it or thousand of ones.
> I did draw some graphs about all the different package relationships > because I couldn't keep them all straight myself. Unfortunaetly I was > traveling and my battery was dead so I did it on dead wood. I guess I > should transefere them to bits and ask them to be included in the > proposal. Would be nice. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Maintainer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
