[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libxslt1 / libxslt1.1 clean-up, comments welcome

On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 07:41:08PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> I'm about to remove the libxslt1 package, which has been created a long
> time ago for backward compatibility, when upstream did screw up ABI and
> removed support for the libxsltbreakpoint library.

> Now that no package depend on it, I am going to remove it, but that
> leaves a libxslt1.1 package alone, not really respectful of the debian
> standards for package naming.

> I was wondering if I should come back to good practice and provide a
> libxslt1 package with the library, and a dummy libxslt1.1 package for
> upgrade support (which should only be removed after etch release).

> It could break some external stuff depending on old libxslt1 (thus
> libxsltbreakpoint), but are there really any left outside of debian ?

> So, what do you think ? Should I just leave it the way it is now or try
> to make it cleaner ?

I think leaving it as-is would be the better option.  The ideal state is to
never have to reuse a library package name for something with an
incompatible interface; which is exactly what you would be doing here, so
I can only see that being justified if you expect a future upstream version
to have libxslt1.1 as the soname.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: