Re: possible mass-filing of bugs: many shared library packages contain binaries in usr/bin
On Sun, 5 May 2002 22:36:21 -0700
David Schleef <email@example.com> wrote:
> > They don't upgrade properly.
> > Fix those bugs.
> No. They are bugs _only if_ the library changes soname, thus
> requiring (potentially) two library packages.
> Even then, it isn't really a problem, since presumably the
> maintainer will remove the binary from the older library
> package when packaging the newer soname library. lib1 depends
> on lib2, lib2 conflicts with lib1 << some.version.
I wonder if those people who are doing it really know what they
The scheme you are explaining requires much effort into
maintaining older lib1. Most maintainers do not want to
maintain the old legacy lib1, and drop it.
lib1 and lib2 coexisting peacefully is important
to let users' systems to keep on working, instead of
conflicting and breaking a bunch of binaries depending on lib1
So that, even though lib1 is unmaintained, it won't be deprecated
instantly, and smooth transition to lib2 is possible
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com