Re: possible mass-filing of bugs: many shared library packages contain binaries in usr/bin
>>>>> "Junichi" == Junichi Uekawa <email@example.com> writes:
Junichi> They don't upgrade properly.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
There are two possible scenarios here:
a) The package is upgraded in such a way that library replacement
occurs. In that case, binary replacement occurs at the same time and
there is *no differecnce* to the user.
b) The package is upgraded by giving the package source a new name
(e.g. libdb or the infamous libgal* packages). In this case the
maintainer needs to be sufficiently clueful to avoid the inevitable
conflict that will occur & prevent both packages from being installed
at the same time unless the --force-overwrite flag is in effect (see
the relevant flamewar elsewhere for why this is or isn't a good idea),
dorwning them in RC bugs & at least keeping the package out of
testing. Having binaries in -dev packages does not avoid this
situation unless there is one & only one -dev package in the archive.
Either way it is not *automatically* a bug to have a binary in a
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com