Re: Small problem with dep-check

bertrand Gugger wrote: > Stefan Neufeind, PEAR wrote: > >> 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. >> > 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