On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 01:25:17PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote: > > I don't really see any reason why the same approach that is used for > > shared library ABIs will not also work for any other ABI. > > Compatibility with other distributions. Is nonexistant when it comes to package names. Go and look at what the major distributions name their packages for apache, glibc, xfree86, and the kernel, for a few of the most common examples. Nobody sane expects package names to be consistant across distributions. > People expect certain programs to behave a certain way; if debian is the > only distribution that calls an outdated version of "bogofilter" still > bogofilter, and to get the bogofilter everybody else uses you need to > install "bogofilter3" and call it "bogofilter3" - that's not a solution. Whoever said that you shouldn't version the name of the first package? ABI versioning breaks utterly if you have *any* unversioned entities in the available pool. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgp7rQixm26yo.pgp
Description: PGP signature