On 20050124T180205+, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho writes,
>
> > A package description is equally visible.
>
> But is it equally machine parsable? If not,
> is this unimportant?
Machine-parsability is not useful if the semantics is misused.
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, De
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 05:47:59PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > we need a feature that was added in some version of a package, there are
> > versioned dependencies. In Debian, NPTL is available in the kernel since
> > version 2.6. It's as simple as that.
>
> IIRC wrong for powerpc with sarge's
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho writes,
> A package description is equally visible.
But is it equally machine parsable? If not,
is this unimportant?
pgpe34FzVBLKz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 24 janvier 2005 à 15:19 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > > What if we removed all dependencies on mail-transport-agent,
> > > just because the user can install a random MTA by himself ?
> >
> > We won't, because that would be silly. And even if it weren't, t
Le lundi 24 janvier 2005 à 16:02 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > We can't list all features of some package in the Provides: field. When
> > we need a feature that was added in some version of a package, there are
> > versioned dependencies. In Debian, NPTL is available in the kernel since
> >
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is just insane. What if we removed all dependencies on
> mail-transport-agent, just because the user can install a random MTA by
> himself ? Why not remove all dependencies, while we're at it? The user
> may have built his own versions of all soft
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:45:49PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 24 janvier 2005 à 15:19 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > > What if we removed all dependencies on mail-transport-agent,
> > > just because the user can install a random MTA by himself ?
> >
> > We won't, because that
Le lundi 24 janvier 2005 à 15:19 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > What if we removed all dependencies on mail-transport-agent,
> > just because the user can install a random MTA by himself ?
>
> We won't, because that would be silly. And even if it weren't, this
> still isn't relevant; we hav
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:03:57PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 23 janvier 2005 à 02:56 +, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
> > Your package doesn't depend on Linux 2.6. Your package depends on NPTL.
> > The only NPTL implementation Debian provides is in Linux 2.6, but users
> > may ha
Le dimanche 23 janvier 2005 à 02:56 +, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
> Your package doesn't depend on Linux 2.6. Your package depends on NPTL.
> The only NPTL implementation Debian provides is in Linux 2.6, but users
> may have built their own 2.4 kernel with NPTL patches. You should depend
> on wh
On 2005-01-22 Martin Kittel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> B) most people compile their own kernels and don't bother registering
> those with dpkg, e.g. via kernel-package, and therefore their systems,
> -while actually running a suitable kernel- do not provide the required
> virtual package
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho debian.org> writes:
>
> The situation here is analoguous to the question whether an X
> installation should depend on fonts: such a dependency would document
> the dependency on inherent in X, yet we don't do that, because there are
> reasonable setups of X where the fonts
On 20050122T161110+0100, Martin Kittel wrote:
> I would like to have some clarification on whether it is sensible to
> declare a package dependency on kernel-image-x.y (e.g. kernel-image-2.6,
> _not_ a full kernel version kernel-image-x.y.z)
No, it's not. The job of a depends relation is to mak
Martin Kittel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to have some clarification on whether it is sensible to
> declare a package dependency on kernel-image-x.y (e.g. kernel-image-2.6,
> _not_ a full kernel version kernel-image-x.y.z)
Your package doesn't depend on Linux 2.6. Your package dep
to throw in my $0.02:
as folks have pointed out, even declaring a dependency against
the package won't guarantee your package will work anyway, why
not just make it a suggests, and in your config script do
something like
rev=`uname -r | grep '^2.6'`
if [ ! "$rev" ]; then
# show debconf no
Martin Kittel wrote:
[snip]
> B) most people compile their own kernels and don't bother registering
> those with dpkg, e.g. via kernel-package, and therefore their systems,
> -while actually running a suitable kernel- do not provide the required
> virtual package.
>
> With A) I absolutely agree
Hi,
I would like to have some clarification on whether it is sensible to
declare a package dependency on kernel-image-x.y (e.g. kernel-image-2.6,
_not_ a full kernel version kernel-image-x.y.z)
In the thread mentioned in the subject I was told by several developers
that it does not make sense t
17 matches
Mail list logo
