Re: C++ transition stumbling blocks?
Junichi Uekawa <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > API compatibility is not at issue. ABI compatibility is.
> > >
> > Haven't you read the rest of my mail? I am _*not*_ talking about
> > binary package names here!
> Neither am I.
> 1. ABI incompatibile library packages should have different names
Different source package names? This means for if i have a source pkg
named 'foo' which produces binary pkg libfoo1, and upstream makes a
ABI change, I have to use a new source pkg name? This would be quite
against current practice, /methinks...
> 2. Packages which do not have corresponding source package will be
> removed from archive
Yes, but if there is no API change, dependant packages can be rebuilt
against the new library.
I think we are talking at cross purposes. Maybe the following can
clear it up:
Here is what Robert did:
- libid3-3.8.0-dev (provides, conflicts, replaces id3lib-dev)
- libid3-3.8.2-dev (provides, conflicts, replaces id3lib-dev)
I think a better solution would be to have:
id3lib (source, as above)
id3lib3.8 (source, of upstream version 3.8.2)
Packages depending on libid3-3.8.0 would simply be rebuilt against
libid3-3.8-dev (>= 3.8.2). It makes no sense (and wastes diskspace on
the mirrors + potentially diskspace *and* RAM on user's machines) to
have both libid3-3.8.0 and libid3-3.8.2 in the archive.
Andreas Rottmann | Dru@ICQ | 118634484@ICQ | email@example.com
http://www.8ung.at/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://www.8ung.at/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62