Re: fun with libgal
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 01:29:52AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Jules Bean <email@example.com> cum veritate scripsit:
> > Yes, it's a fairly well known problem.
> > But what you describe is *not* how it is usually solved. In fact,
> > it's not usually solved at all. It is usually left broken.
> The fact that it's usually not solved does not give an excuse for
> solving it.
> I presented a solution which will work within the Package Dependency
> framework of Debian, which some packages are following.
Right. I think I misunderstood. Perhaps you should explain again in
words of one syllable ;)
What is your proposed solution?
I'm not sure I believe in any solution which involves modifying the
soname, since that makes us binary incompatible with upstream.
> This problem is orthogonal to the topic of discussion (fun with libgal),
> but it is one of the problems that exist currently.
Not totally orthogonal, since gal is typically involved in such
> We don't have to end up with many versions of shared library,
> we may want to pull some shared library versions out,
> but we don't just want to replace a shared library package
> with the same name and incompatible ABI.
Agreed, this is a problem.