On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On ons, 2012-03-28 at 23:00 -0700, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>> I totally agree with Robert's point that one feature is not
>> standardized and nobody can tell how you can depend on the feature in
>> the end. Mind you, I've never heard about building dependency by its
>> name as a string in other packaging system. If you want to introduce
>> the concept of version dependency not feature name dependency, do
>> *it*; I don't think feature dependency solves it.
>
> The Python setuptools (a.k.a. distutils a.k.a. distribute a.k.a. eggs
> a.k.a. easy_install a.k.a. dont-get-me-started) system supports feature
> names that a package can provide, but it uses them for a different
> purpose. The idea is that a package "foo" can depend on a package
> "bar[somethingextra]", and then bar itself would declare it's
> dependencies such that it depends, say, on "ham", but if feature
> "somethingextra" is required, it also depends on "eggs".
>
> This is actually quite useful,
Wow. That is complex, but I agree that it's useful.
> but it breaks down when you, say, want to
> wrap your egg into a Debian package.
*blink* Huh?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
