On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 06:24:30PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 07:03:40PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 05:08:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 05:51:25PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > > > Of course it is, if they are only called by libraries (or other > > > > binaries), they should be in /libexec instead of /bin. And I'm not > > > > sure it's wrong to ship them in a library packages then. > > > > > > You're missing the point. What happens when the user wants to install > > > two versions of a library package simultaneously? > > > > If those libraries can use the same binary then it should be in a > > seperate package. But if the binary is thightly bound to the library, > > then it should be in the same package (probably with a version number > > on it so you can install multiple versions of the same library). > > Indeed, the version number is the point. It might require negotiation > with upstream if people are likely to have scripts that call the > unversioned name. > > Probably the simplest solution for most cases is to split the binaries > into a separate package wherever possible and make those runtime > packages conflict, which usually won't be too much of a problem. But if each version of the library depends on the same version of the package, you can't install both libraries then. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
Attachment:
pgpAPhml6v5Eq.pgp
Description: PGP signature