Re: possible mass-filing of bugs: many shared library packages contain binaries in usr/bin
On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 01:51, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The only real problem here, and the one I think Brian was alluding to,
> is that you can't have two versions of the same source package installed
> into a distribution at the same time; each major version of the library
> must have its own source package with a different name. This is really
> quite an insignificant problem, however: if you want Debian to provide
> two versions of the library, then there needs to be a maintainer for
> each of them. It is not sufficient to have a maintainer for only the
> new version of the library and allow the old library to coast
> unmaintained into a stable release. If there's no one willing to put
> forth the effort to coordinate the packages for liborbit0 and liborbit2
> (for example) so that they can both be installed into the archive, then
> there's no point in complaining about a lack of good support for old
> versions; the problem at that point is not a lack of infrastructure, but
> a lack of maintainer interest.
Actually, that is another can of worms.
If the old library has bugs there are several options:
1. force everyone to recompile using the latest library.
2. upload a new version of the old library.
Number 2 above sounds promising, but consider you will have to upload
the old source package again. This means:
* fudging the upstream version number.
* replacing other packages also produced by this source with old
Alternatively, you could hack the source code so that it will produce
nothing but the required shared library, and rename it so it doesn't
conflict with the new source code.
hmmm... I probably should save a list of points raised here so I don't
need to retype this all in again the next time somebody asks... Hows
this look? Any obvious mistakes?
Brian May <email@example.com>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com