PHP PEAR Questions and Answers - Re: [PEAR-QA] Small problem with dep-check

Author

Re: [PEAR-QA] Small problem with dep-check

bertrand Gugger

2005-10-15, 7:55 am

Hey
Stefan Neufeind, PEAR wrote:

>Hi,
>
>don't know if somebody already mentioned it - I hope not to duplicate
>this topic :-) Here, running PEAR 1.4.2, I encountered a small problem
>trying to upgrade HTML_Progress to the latest stable (as of 2005-10-01).
>It requires HTML_Page2 version >= 0.5.0. That's installed - but it's
>called 0.5.0beta. There seems to be either something wrong with the
>dep-check - or HTML_Page2 should not have appended "beta" to it's
>version-number.
>
>
>Regards,
> Stefan
>
>
>
Did you try
pear -d preferred_state=beta upgrade HTML_Progress
?
Anyway, hears funny to see a "stable" depends on a "beta",
That should be possible in a temporary state when the deps upgrades,
but here, HTML_Page2 was *allways* beta.
à+
--
bertrand "toggg" Gugger

Stefan Neufeind, PEAR

2005-10-16, 6:55 pm

bertrand Gugger wrote:
> Stefan Neufeind, PEAR wrote:
>
> Did you try
> pear -d preferred_state=beta upgrade HTML_Progress
> ?
> Anyway, hears funny to see a "stable" depends on a "beta",
> That should be possible in a temporary state when the deps upgrades,
> but here, HTML_Page2 was *allways* beta.

HTML_Page2 is installed here already as version 0.5.0beta with state
beta. But HTML_Progress seems to relies on >=0.5.0. Since I installed
the dependend package beforehand manually, I expected to be able to
upgrade a stable package with prefered_state set to stable.

If this is by design, as Bertrand wrote, I don't think it's a good
solution to leave the average PEAR-user alone with the problem - since
he already got the correct package that HTML_Progress depends on.

PS: I agree with Bertrand that a stable package should not rely on any
non-stable package. But afaik that's already in the rules somewhere and
is a separate issue ...

Regards,
Stefan

Sponsored Links