[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How to transition to G++ 3.2 wthout any breakage



> > hacking the dynamic linker certainly is better than that...
> This only allows to avoid creating wrappers but doesn't avoid the
> problem that two libraries can't have the same filename.
> Something (dpkg) must move one of them.

No. The maintainer must, by uploading a new version of the old library,
and using proper Conflicts. That way other packages can depend on the
moved versions properly.

> Aren't the G++ 3.2 packages going to be moved into sarge? Even if you do
> so when the transition is complete, there will still be non-Debian G++
> v2 packages installed on users' machines.

No, they are not, as long as there are dependency problems, and as long
as we keep a bug "G++ 3.2 transition incomplete" open...
There are -nice- and -tested- methods to do such things.

> The change from libpng2 to libpng3 is a total disaster like this one.

No, the transition worked fine. The disaster is not the way Debian gtk2
migrated, but the library itself.

> What I especially don't like is the concept that GTK+, that doesn't use
> any png structure in its interface, can dictate what a program using it
> does with libpng.

The gtk engines that use png's do depend on png. That goes this far that
even statically linked GTK apps sometimes don't work - because they try
to load a gtk theme with different libraries. (see mldonkey faq, p.e.)

> This concept is inherently totally absurd and broken and _anything_ is
> better than allowing something as stupid as this. And I'm surprised that
> this isn't obvious and that this transition was not stopped by anyone.

The transition worked fine, so i don't blame the people who did it.
It was a minor disaster on a FreeBSD box i regularly use....
It worked like a charm because they used package depedencies, instead of
any ugly hacks.

> Anyway, putting v3 packages in a separate directory still requires to
> modify /etc/ld.so.conf and create wrappers for v2 packages.

Why do v2 packages need to be modified, if v3 libraries are in a
different directory???

> And we still have the problem of external packages that don't obey the
> rule of the gcc-3.2 directory.

Depending on what other distributions do. If they follow this concept,
too, everyone will be fine. If they don't they'll have to solve the
whole issue, too... People won't be happy if their applications work on
SuSE 9 but not on SuSE 8 or whatever.

Gruss,
Erich Schubert
-- 
        erich@(mucl.de|debian.org)        --        GPG Key ID: 4B3A135C
          Go away or i'll replace you with a very small shell script.
  Es ist besser, geliebt und verloren zu haben, als niemals geliebt zu haben.
               Humor sollte immmer dabeisein, auch bei Problemen.



Reply to: