[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 05 May 2002 21:09:49 -0700
Stephen Zander <gibreel@debian.org> wrote:

> >>>>> "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
> means."

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[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.

No, -dev should have the following entry:

Package: libsomething1-dev
Provides: libsomething-dev
Conflicts: libsomething-dev

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 


dancer@debian.org  http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer

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

Reply to: