On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 09:59:28AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > * Add a Conflict with the non-`c' version of the package. > why can't we have both installed, just like the libfoo6 and libfoo6g > situation?? Because doing so would require changing the soname. Which is possible, but would mean inventing a new soname that's not used anywhere else. If upstream then reuse the soname we make up for something different we end up with continuing problems. As far as non-Debian apps go, it seems likely, especially with the LSB looking to standardise C++ on gcc 3.2 "soon" (in theory in the next couple of months, in practice maybe longer) that people will expect the "current" sonames to use the gcc 3.2 C++ ABI. Other options are: * encourage upstream to bump their soname themselves, and wait for them to do that. so libfoo.so.2 is the old C++ ABI, and libfoo.so.3 is the new one, eg. * encourage upstream to encode the C++ ABI in the soname, as apt does, ending up with something like libapt-pkg-libc6.2-3-2.so.3.2. (I have no idea how this is worked out) If upstream aren't inclined to change their Linux soname for the new gcc, though, not changing our soname but doing the upgrade anyway seems the best option. 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:
pgpbJyDfSpn__.pgp
Description: PGP signature