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

Re: fun with libgal

On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 01:29:52AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Jules Bean <jules@jellybean.co.uk> 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
inter-library dependencies.

> 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.


Reply to: