[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: portage vs yum

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Kevin Kofler wrote:

Peter Gordon <peter <at> thecodergeek.com> writes:
IIRC, whereas Yum and other binary-based systems such as APT track literal
libraries (e.g., "libfoo.so.42(ABI_TAG)"),

That's how RPM does it (and yum and apt-rpm then compute dependencies based on that information), yes.

DPKG doesn't support that, so Debian's solution is to just call the package
providing libfoo.so.42 libfoo42, so when libfoo.so.43 comes out, the packages
will require libfoo43 and apt will know that libfoo42 is insufficient.

DPKG does support virtual provides/requires (which the soname dependencies essentially are) just fine, and .deb build can be told to extract automatic soname dependencies. The difference there is that the soname dependencies are resolved to package names at *build* time, not runtime like normally in rpm world. This means dramatically less junk for depsolver to handle, but it also means much, much stricter packaging policies must be used. Like the library package naming you mention, and that packages can't be split without rebuilding depending packages etc.

	- Panu -

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]