On Sun, 2002-05-05 at 10:38, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> Am I right that you actually want to have libeditline provide
> libreadline, but a simple Provide: won't work here because versioned
> provides don't work?
Hmmmm... Interesting point.
If libeditline conflicts, provides libreadline, and has
/usr/lib/libreadline.so*, then it would be 100% ABI compatible, and
programs would be able to use either. (you could argue that it isn't
currently 100% ABI compatible due to the different name).
Just some issues you might encounter though:
* package depends (For non-GPL packages) need to prefer
libeditline over libreadline (my understanding only).
* version provides won't help; the version numbers are
* All programs would have to use libeditline if installed, even
those that are capable of using libreadline. This might be
good for some people, not so good for others.
Brian May <email@example.com>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com