BR-s and R-s policy
wrobell at pld-linux.org
Mon Sep 24 22:41:36 CEST 2007
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 12:54:31PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 08:33:09AM +0200, Cezary Krzyzanowski wrote:
> > > Patrys asked me to up evolution spec to 1.12 (corresponding with GNOME
> > > 2.20) and I've spotted, that during the GNOME packages update all the
> > > BR-s and R-s of gnome packages were upped to 2.20 line.
> > >
> > > The question is -- Is this necessary? I mean I've looked into
> > > evolution's configure.in and it seems it doesn't need half the newest
> > > packages that are listed in BR-s and R-s in evolution.spec (like it
> > > needs GConf2 >= 2.0.0, not newest, shiniest 2.19).
> > Bumping always to currently latest version is not necessary and
> > sometimes annoying.
> > But specifying versions of packages from the same GNOME release just in
> > packages belonging to the same GNOME release (and similarly for
> > KDE/XFCE/etc.) to get consistent package set is fine. It seems that
> > at least some GNOME packages are not tested with older dependent
> > packages and need some newer in fact.
> That's exactly the reason. There were problems in the past with packages
> from different GNOME releases that did compile but didn't work.
> The current "always latest BR" in GNOME it's to ensure the entire
> environment is consistent.
just to support above... if somethings goes wrong than "latest-versioning"
procedure prevents hell, which happened to me several times while upgrading
gnome in the past.
if one wants to kill this procedure, than we need another one to secure
work performed while upgrading complex set of packages.
wrobell <wrobell at pld-linux.org>
More information about the pld-devel-en