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

Re: New control field proposal which could help on gcc3.2 transition



On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 11:42:27AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 12:05:39PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Genralize it past library packages and this isn't really much of an
> > > option though. Something like debconf FE can break backwards
> > > compatability and yet has no soname, unfortunatly.
> > So why don't we give it a "soname" ? "Depends: debconf-1 (>= 1.0.24)", eg?
> We're going to do just that once we rework debconf policy a bit. It will
> start at debconf-2 though. 
> However, not all packages should do that right off, 

Why not?

> and this new field
> offers a good way to recover from lack of foresight.

If you're willing to change your package name, lack of foresight isn't
a problem anyway. Rather than going from "debconf-1 (>= 1.0.24)" to
"debconf-2 (>= 2.0.1)", you go from "debconf (>= 1.0.24)" to the same
thing.

Apart from an instinctive "ewww" at cluttering the package name a bit,
I can't see any benefits to a "ABI-Got-Broken-At:" header over just
versioning the package name a la library packages.

Doing things this way conceivably also lets you have both debconf-1 and
debconf-2 available at the same time, making the transition a little
easier, just like it is for regular libraries.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

Attachment: pgpUDtCv946fc.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: