Re: RFC: some new deb package flag: "upgrade-conflicts"
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 02:56:31AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 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.
It's not the package names -- it's the binary names, and the names
of the config files. Allowing, say, mozilla M16 and mozilla 1.0 to be
installed concurrently and both to work means having one of them not be
called mozilla and having one of them not use ~/.mozilla.
> 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.
Actually, it doesn't. "" is quite usable as an ABI version, as long as
you only use it once, just like any other ABI version.
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.''
Reply to: