Re: Logging practices (and why does it suck in Debian?)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Lupe Christoph <lupe@lupe-christoph.de> writes:
> On Friday, 2001-04-20 at 14:14:13 -0300, Peter Cordes wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 10:12:42AM -0600, Tim Uckun wrote:
> > > Shared libraries may have been a good idea but somehow the
> > > implementation in both windows and linux got all weird. I just
> > > did a search for *.dll on my windows 2K system and it came back
> > > with 4,303 files.
>
> I thought Linux supports versioning for shared libraries. Forgive me
> for being a Solaris weenie, but I can't understand why you can't have
> several versions of one shared library. Or can you in *Linux*, but
> the Debian packaging breaks this?
Linux supports shared versioning, and Debian exploits this greatly
(witness the presence of tk8.0, tk8.2, and tk8.3 all simultaneously
present and until recently all installed on my main workstation, for
example).
I don't know what problem the guy Tim is responding to is running
into, but I'm certainly not seeing it myself. As near as I can tell
Windows does *not* support versioning libraries (versioned COM objects
is another thing), they hack around this by renaming the DLL every
`major revision'. Ultimately the same solution, just less elegant.
<snip>
> > And BTW, installing stuff in Debian won't break other packages, unless
> > one package lists the other in its Conflicts: line. If so, apt won't let
> > you install both at once. That's not so bad. You can tell apt to download
> > source, build the package, and install it for you if you don't have the lib
> > versions it was compiled against.
>
> Well, can you have two versions of libc?
Of course!
You just can't have two versions of glibc; for whatever reason they
didn't increment the major version number for 2.0->2.1 and yea, some
things did indeed break. But I can and do have libc5 on my
workstation at home.
- --
Graham Hughes <graham@lynda.com>
PGP fingerprint: 1F1D 0027 B835 E114 3F5B 2C7C 64D1 83A0 C5C7 312A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>
iD8DBQE64JnPZNGDoMXHMSoRAmtsAKDB4Yx4+Nz1SgL8xXnsaA0wkppc8QCgxOqb
k/6ILUL2i59ZitQXI0eehwI=
=UljW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: