On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 10:30:00AM -0500, mcmahill@mtl.mit.edu wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Todd Vierling wrote:
> 
> > I have a possibly better solution but it'll take some fleshing out.  I'll
> > post about it Soon.
> 
> looking forward to hearing about it.  I know its not a trivial problem and
> there probably isn't a 100% foolproof solution.

Personally, I'd be happy with a combination of things... It'll require some
maintenance, but:

1) Packages get updated frequently, and a web of package information is
maintained, such that a package doesn't hang around too long before knowing
about new versions of libraries (and such) that it uses. Packages would
contain a range of versions with which they're compatible, rather than
nailing down a single version.

2) Our package system automatically rebuilds everything, as needed, as long
as there aren't any cases where something is known to conflict with a newer
version of a library (e.g.) it uses. In that case, it can simply spit out
a warning message and stop, as with our current system. In some cases, the
user still has choices to make, but in the general case it makes the user's
life easier.

The only downside to this approach I can see is that it is likely to take
quite a bit longer on older machines, as it will require quite a bit more
compiling by definition. Also, I'm not sure if there are any special issues
with regard to binary packages, since I've never used 'em.

-- 
Mason Loring Bliss...mason@acheron.middleboro.ma.us...acheron.nws.net/mason/
"In the drowsy dark cave of the mind dreams build their nest with fragments
  dropped from day's caravan."--Rabindranath Tagore...awake ? sleep : dream;