On 04/02/10 22:54, Thomas Bächler wrote:
However, it's worthless to discuss implementation and concepts if the idea is entirely rejected by our main makepkg developer.
It is not entirely rejected. I just have very limited time at the moment so end up just pointing out what I do not like about ideas. I actually do like some of the idea, but there are parts I obviously dislike. In future I'll put some effort into being clearer about that... Anyway, here are some of my opinions on this idea: 1) I'd prefer just using a single depends array rather than an additional sodepends array. A version of pacman's "-d" ignoring dependency versioning would not require a separate array and would be far more useful than one that ignored sodepends. I think that should be implemented in pacman no matter what. 2) I do not like "magically" adding libraries to the depends/provides array. I really want them to be manually specified (versions can be automatic - see #3). For example, the readline package would want to provide libreadline.so as that is important but libhistory.so is really not... What is important or not would be up to the distro packagers. 3) I would like the sodeps to be listed like (e.g) "libreadline.so". This makes the dependency named closer to what is actually is. Makepkg could recognize the ".so" at the end and use readelf on the binaries and automatically add the relevant version. The "soname-arch" type prefix is ugly. "soname" is covered by the ".so" and multi-lib stuff is not really as critical so "arch" is not really needed either. These three points would go a long way to alleviate my concerns about this. From my suggestions it should be clear that I really do not want every package to have all possible so-provides and -depends added automatically. That seems too much like an even poorer implementation of rpm to me and would be very, very difficult to get around all the edge cases. Allan