[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       horde-dev
Subject:    Re: [dev] too strict dependency?
From:       Michael M Slusarz <slusarz () horde ! org>
Date:       2011-04-07 16:11:00
Message-ID: 20110407101100.Horde.KOhwO4F5lbhNneIUxyTyVeA () bigworm ! curecanti ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Quoting Jan Schneider <jan@horde.org>:

> Zitat von Mathieu Parent <math.parent@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm preparing some automated packaging for Horde4 in Debian and went
>> to the following dependency in pear package "Cache":
>> [[
>> ...
>> <optional>
>> ...
>> <package>
>>  <name>lzf</name>
>>  <channel>pecl.php.net</channel>
>>  <recommended>1.5.2</recommended>
>> </package>
>> ]]
>>
>> The meaning of recommended is very strict in
>> <http://pear.php.net/manual/fr/guide.developers.package2.dependencies.php>:
>>
>> [[
>> <recommended> - recommended version of a dependency. This tag is used
>> for *strict* version control. The installer will refuse to install a
>> package without the --force option unless the version exactly matches
>> recommended. This can be used to provide a level of extra security, as
>> a package can be set to install using a version that is known to work
>> without limiting future upgrades.
>> ]]
>>
>> Is it the intented behavior? (or should it be <min>1.5.2</min> ?)
>
> No, it should really be <min>. Actually, I'm not sure we really need  
> a minimum version at all. Michael?

I really have no recollection of why (or even if) I did this.  It  
seems that min would be appropriate usage here.

michael

___________________________________
Michael Slusarz [slusarz@horde.org]

-- 
Horde developers mailing list
Frequently Asked Questions: http://horde.org/faq/
To unsubscribe, mail: dev-unsubscribe@lists.horde.org
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]