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

Re: RFC: Soname in rpm name



On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 22:55 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:22:13PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > I sort of agree, but shipping such packages should be done only if
> > absolutely necessary in FC/FE.  Carrying backwards compatibility baggage
> > is not something that aligns well with the project's objectives IMO.
> 
> But on the contrary it is not directed compatibility, but rather a
> unilateral, you have a scheme for both forward and backward
> compatibility packages, so that third parties (as well as Red Hat as a
> vendor itslef) can easily move forward to the next bleeding edge
> softwrae release.

Well, I guess it can be seen in many ways.  Note that I don't object to
a common consistent naming scheme at all, on the contrary.

My concern is that such a scheme _when applied as a standard procedure
for all library packages_ would probably lower the barrier for including
backwards compatibility cruft for which there will probably no
interested parties to clean it up nor maintain.  And once something is
in, it's always hard to drop it; there will always be someone yelling
"don't remove fooX.Y.Z, I need it for my ancient baz package".  I don't
think that stuff belongs in Fedora.


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