On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 01:42:06PM +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote: > On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 12:46 +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote: > > I was just looking at valknut and libdc0 packages which didn't undergo > > gcc 4.x ABI transition and how one question: > > If valknut is only package which is using C++ libdc0 package, is there > > real technical reason to rename libdc0 to libdc0c2 instead of just > > adding: > > Conflicts: valknut (<< gcc-4.x.version), dcgui-qt (<< gcc-4.0version) > > to libdc0 This is less robust in the face of third-party valknut debs that may have transitioned to gcc-4.0 at a different point in their version history. There's also no reason to conflict with dcgui-qt here, btw; and in any case, << conflicts are known to be problematic for upgrades, so this will cause awkward upgrade paths any time apt picks up the new version of libdc0 as an upgrade candidate before it sees the new version of valknut: apt may choose to remove valknut instead of upgrading it. If you rename the library package, then valknut is the upgrade candidate, and libdc0c2 is pulled in automatically and libdc0 is removed automatically. > Err, maybe shlibs update is more appropriate :-) I don't understand what you mean there. > > and > > > > Depends: libdc0 (>= gcc-4.x.version) > > I am pretty sure, that there is no other (even proprietary) package > > which uses libdc0. I still think it would be bad form to rely on this, although I hope the above arguments have already persuaded you to rename according to the transition plan. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature