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

Re: RFC: Soname in rpm name

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:46:01 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:49:12 -0500, Toshio <toshio tiki-lounge com> wrote:
> > I'm also still waiting to see why the current de facto scheme of:
> >   current = libname
> >   previous  = libname[Version]
> > 
> > is _compellingly_ wrong...  Perhaps there just needs to be a summary of
> > Pros and Cons so we can see the tradeoffs.
> If i understand the argument that people are making... is that doing
> it this way... is a burden on 3rd party packagers who have to try to
> predict when and if Core is going to introduce a libname[Version] for
> previous versions.

Whenever that happens - when a Core package is renamed like this - the 3rd
party packagers need to update their spec files to make them buildrequire
libname[Version]-devel instead.

Similarly, when the soname's major library version is put into the package
name always, the Core packagers and everyone else, who wants to build rpms
with the new library, would need to update the build requirements in all
spec files when the major library version is increased.

And what does the rule look like with packages which contain multiple
libraries with different major versions?

> And by association also a burden on users who are trying to use
> applications from outside of current Core that still need the older
> libs for applications until a 3rd party is able to rebuild a package
> with the older libs or the application developers retool to support
> the new library.

That I don't see. Thanks to automatic dependencies on versioned
sonames, the user doesn't need to know where libfoo.so.3 comes
from, i.e. whether it is to be found in package libfoo3-3.0.1-1
or libfoo-3.0.3-1.

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