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

Re: Ekiga dependencies



On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 22:12:51 -0800, Conrad wrote:

> On Saturday 03 January 2009 10:05:55 pm Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:
> >
> > For future reference, would it be better (this is my ignorance asking)
> > for a dependency to be on a library (x.so.n) or on a package
> > name/version combination (x.version)?
> 
> Library dependencies are generated automatically so it is considered poor 
> style to Require: the package explicitly.

"Poor style" is not the reason, however.

Package name dependencies are weak. Much weaker than the automatic
dependencies on a specific library SONAME -- in particular everytime the
library SONAME is changed.

Dependencies on minimum package version ranges are weak, too. Less weak,
but often they get out-of-date.

Strict dependencies on specific package versions are fragile.

All of them make it harder to rename a package or move the library
elsewhere. And a superfluous explicit dependency on a package name
adds confusion. It suggests that package "foo" is sufficient, but the
depsolver fails to resolve the stricter, automatically added library
dependency nevertheless.


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