Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes: > The sonames for gtk+ are not reasonable regardless of the 1.3 > development series, because they're tied to 'versions' in the stable > releases as well. Or were there no gtk+ functions at all that > changed ABI between 1.0 and 1.2.x? What are you talking about? The soname of libgtk 1.2.10 is "libgtk-1.2.so.0". What version from the 1.0 series had this soname? On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Michèl Alexandre Salim wrote: > > *sigh* perhaps not such a good idea, packaging preview-type > > packages for Debian. I think you're doing a good thing, FWIW. > > Note that both Red > > Hat and Mandrake seems to have no difficulty just > > calling the packages (lib)gtk+2 and (lib)glib2 [...] They have no problems putting a development snapshot of gcc into a package bearing the next version number as well. Marketing-driven companies are not a good lead for Debian. > If it sees the public eye, and it's binary-incompatible, it merits its own > major so number. Anything else is a hazard for our users, regardless of what > developers think of the situation. Indeed. But why is that not the case here? -- Robbe
Attachment:
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature