On 19.01.2016 15:48, Stephan Aßmus wrote:
Am 19.01.2016 um 14:35 schrieb Ingo Weinhold:
I didn't mean to imply that programs should or would typically specify
an upper library version. That's a rare case e.g. when there's already a
newer library version out there and, while binary compatible, some
behavior changed in a way that makes your program unhappy. But usually,
as you wrote, you'd only specify the lowest library version. The upper
version is provided implicitly by the library packages, because they
specify their backward compatibility version.(*)(**)
Maybe I misunderstood Simon and you. Are there some (or many?) packages
out there which do not specify a version range, but instead declare a
specific library version as their dependency, and that is the actual
problem? (I.e they should declare a minimum version instead?)
