[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs giflib, giflib_doc, giflib_rt, libungif

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Phil,

Am 12.03.2010 um 21:40 schrieb Philip Brown:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Dagobert Michelsen  
> <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> Am 12.03.2010 um 18:41 schrieb Philip Brown:
>
>>> If you include it in a SEPARATE package, then it messes up our
>>> inter-package dependancy checking, due to the issues you already
>>> discovered a month or two ago, about why it is "bad" to use
>>> Alternatives on a shared lib split across multiple packages.
>>
>> It is not "bad". There are some things which you must do right, but
>> then it works. This has been documented at
>>  <http://wiki.opencsw.org/project-alternatives#toc3>
>
> however, that same url also documents that it does NOT work.
> or at least, specifically, checkpkg no longer does, as i wrote above.

That is not a problem in itself. The package may very well work, the
maintainer just has to do some manual checks for that. Additionally,
checkpkg could be made aware of alternatives and look inside the
alternatives configuration itself.

> An excerpt from the url:
> "No chance for checkpkg to verify the symbols unless GAR tells
> checkpkg the alternatives-pathes."
>
> but having a checkpkg that only functions within a GAR tree,  is not  
> very nice.

I prefer a clean, perfectly functioning package which needs manual
checking instead of a package that needs overriding checks (missing
dependencies) and crashes on usage.


Best regards

   -- Dago