Re: fun with libgal
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
> If recompiling with a newer version of libgal causes an incompatibility
> in libgtkhtml20 (I don't know whether it does or not), then its soname
The soname is given by upstream...
> and package name must be changed, so evolution will continue to work
> when linked against the library from the old libgtkhtml package. If it
> doesn't cause an incompatibility, then the situation you describe is not
> a problem.
And people will start to ask that there should be different libgtkhtml20
packages that are compiled with different libgal versions so that they
don't have to recompile their packages...
IMHO having several libgalXY pacakages in the archive causes more problems
than we have with the current situation.
A different thing is that it could make things easier when libgal packages
with new sonames wouldn't go into unstable as soon as they are available
but only at dates coordinated with the maintainers of packages depending
on libgal - I understand that these maintainers weren't happy when they
saw a new soname every week. Especially to make it possible to get new
libgal versions into testing it might help to have something like a "there
won't be a new libgal soname within the next three weeks". Is something
like this a possible compromise that is acceptable both for the libgal
maintainer and the maintainers of packages depending on libgal (e.g. to
compile gnumeric with the shared library again)?
Just my 0,02
Adrian
Reply to: