Re: possible mass-filing of bugs: many shared library packages contain binaries in usr/bin
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 07:03:40PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 05:08:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 05:51:25PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > Of course it is, if they are only called by libraries (or other
> > > binaries), they should be in /libexec instead of /bin. And I'm not
> > > sure it's wrong to ship them in a library packages then.
> > You're missing the point. What happens when the user wants to install
> > two versions of a library package simultaneously?
> If those libraries can use the same binary then it should be in a
> seperate package. But if the binary is thightly bound to the library,
> then it should be in the same package (probably with a version number
> on it so you can install multiple versions of the same library).
Indeed, the version number is the point. It might require negotiation
with upstream if people are likely to have scripts that call the
Probably the simplest solution for most cases is to split the binaries
into a separate package wherever possible and make those runtime
packages conflict, which usually won't be too much of a problem.
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org