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

Re: possible mass-filing of bugs: many shared library packages contain binaries in usr/bin

On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 06:24:30PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> 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
> unversioned name.
> 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.

But if each version of the library depends on the same version of the
package, you can't install both libraries then.

Jeroen Dekkers
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen@openprojects

Attachment: pgpQS1u9iXfcp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: