On Monday 20 November 2006 12:09, Jim Perrin wrote: > > In the example I used above, you could mix and match easily, choosing > > php, php-mysql5, and php-pgsql (for core linked pgsql) just by choosing > > those packages. That's not too hard. I assumed since this is the devel > > list, and since this thread was referring to php, that particular package > > layout would be understood. Not every package links in this manner > > though, so yes, it could get confusing for packages that don't (although > > the more distinct libraries a package links to, the more likely it is to > > compartmentalize them). > > To nit-pick your example: > This isn't hard on the user side. On the builder side however, this > requires amazing amounts of work, including multiple builds per arch > based on linking package-sets, and multiple copies of repositories to > build against. There is not really a nice way to automate a build of > this style and the reward is not worth the effort. Even for php, which > does separate out and would be 'simple' it is still a very complex > process on the back end. Yeah, I agreed that it could get confusing. Any way you look at it providing a package that links towards base and another similar package linked against another repo containg newer libs is going to be hard. I included that in the reply for clarification and in the original post because that's what this thread is about, even though the post wasn't so concerned with that particular. -- - Kevan Benson - A-1 Networks