Re: possible mass-filing of bugs: many shared library packages contain binaries in usr/bin
On 05 May 2002 21:09:49 -0700
Stephen Zander <email@example.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "Junichi" == Junichi Uekawa <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Junichi> They don't upgrade properly.
> "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
I will explain it to you a bit more in the hope that you can understand.
> 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.
A user may have external binary (outside of Debian control) that links to the library.
That binary will stop starting.
> 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.
No, -dev should have the following entry:
so that only one version of the -dev package will be installable.
> Either way it is not *automatically* a bug to have a binary in a
> library package.
I have clued you to the problems and solutions, can you still say that
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org