Bug#54985: debian-policy: handling of shared libraries
Brian May writes:
> >>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>
> Ian> However, with the current arrangement I can't do that.
> Ian> Whenever I want to upgrade a binary package I have to update
> Ian> the libraries that it depends on to at least as recent a
> Ian> version. But, because the runtime libraries and development
> Ian> libraries must be in version lockstep, this means I have to
> Ian> upgrade the development package too. Then, due to further
> Ian> dependencies, I usually find I have to upgrade my entire
> Ian> development environment, and often including the C and C++
> Ian> compilers and a whole slew of unrelated tools, to the version
> Ian> from unstable.
>
> I am confused, maybe somebody can help clarify.
>
> For example, if I look at libreadline2, libreadlineg2 and libreadline4
> can all be installed at the same time. Isn't it then simply a matter
> of selecting the development package that corresponds with the
> required version?
Not infrequently, this is something that happens within a major
version - a quick look at current packages suggest that particular
versions are quite often necessary.
> Of course, this won't help if a new and incompatable version of a
> library has the same major version, (eg glibc 2.1 vs glibc 2.0), and
> hence cannot be installed at the same time, but perhaps these could be
> treated as special cases where the symlink *is* replaced by the actual
> file, especially for older versions of the library? eg you could[1]
Clearly there is a case for leaving it up to the maintainers'
discretion, but of course with the caveat that if people have problems
such as those that Ian describes, then a bug will have to be submitted
- making all libraries provide the file seems a simpler solution to
me.
Matthew
--
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org
Reply to: