[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

>>>>> "Junichi" == Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp> 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[234] 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
library package.


"A duck!"

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: