[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Guile 1.3 == SO 4

olet@ifi.uio.no (Ole J. Tetlie) writes:

> *-James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
> |
> | David Welton <davidw@gate.cks.com> writes:
> | 
> | > If it is not compatible, why put symlinks?
> | 
> | They're not.  I got scwm working again by putting a compat symlink
> | .so.3 -> .so.4.
> Because one program _seems to_ work you assume that you know better
> than the upstream?

Say what?  I never claimed to know better than upstream, I do seem to
know more about the _Debian_ guile3 packages than the current
``maintainer'' though, which scares me.  Programs in debian linked
against libguile.so.3 were using a guile 1.3 snapshot, and *not* guile
1.2.  As far as I know and can see, guile 1.3 has not changed that
much since the date of the snapshot.  David didn't say anywhere that
upstream had explicitly claimed the contrary.  Don't go with compat
symlinks, if you want, but please, someone fix the damn package.

Oh, and it doesn't ``seem to work'', it *does work*, I think I'd
notice if my window manager wasn't working.  [After all, it's been
broken by the libguile1.3 package twice now]

I would really love to see this _sick_ habit of FUBARing library
packages, which some maintainers seem to think is acceptable practice,
end.  If a library changes in an incompatible way (soname change or
recompile with another library or whatever), the package name has to
change.  It's as simple as that.  Anything less makes us look
incredibly shoddy.  I *don't* expect to upgrade a package with the
debian package management system and have it break several other
unrelated, and possibly critical applications on the system with *no*


Reply to: