Re: question about optional dependencies

Hi, Since it is an optional dependency, i think the installer should make it very clear that since the installed version is too high some features will be broken. It is not even a "cannot use features", it is a "some features will not behave correctly due to the version XYZ installed". So i'm for a big warning but i don't think preventing installation is the way to go. <rant> why do i have the impression the problem really is "pear needs to install several versions of the same package" :) </rant> Arnaud. > Hi, > > if a package optionally depends on a package like so: > > package Foo: > > <dep type="pkg" rel="lt" version="2.0">Bar</dep> > > and Bar version 2.1 is installed, currently, when the user installs Foo, > it will only do a warning: > > $ pear install Foo > Warning: package `Bar' version 2.0 is recommended to utilize some features > Install OK: Foo > > This is a bug, as it doesn't explain that Bar < 2.0 is required. > > The same situation happens with a ge/gt or ne relation > > <dep type="pkg" rel="ge" version="2.2">Bar</dep> > > $pear install Foo > Warning: package `Bar' version 2.2 is recommended to utilize some features > Install OK: Foo > > My question is, should installation be prevented if an optional > dependency is not satisfied with a package that is already installed? > > In other words, Foo will probably be broken if it attempts to use Bar as > part of the optional features, should the installer prevent installation > of Foo without --force? > > This question has particular relevance to questions of BC.