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

Re: RFC: Soname in rpm name

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:54:30 -0500 (EST), Sean <seanlkml sympatico ca> wrote:
> Why not propose a solution that does what you want instead of imposing
> this artificial barrier on others trying to solve different problems?

I'm explaining a situation that the current naming method handles
better than  the proposed per soname does. I'm not arguing for any
policy change at all, you are. if you want to argue for a policy
change I would hope that you are open minded enough to keep other
issues other than your primary concern in mind.    The  soname in
package policy you would like to see for all packages... will
negatively impact the aspect of packaging I bring up compared to the
current method of doing the per sonaming on an as needed basis.
  Packaging policy is a complex issue, and while  you would like to
focus on one aspect and build a policy that makes that one aspect
easier to deal with... it has consequences for other aspects of
packaging.  I'd love a perfect solution that everyone will like that
solves all problems, but in the meantime I'm not horribly upset with
the 'as needed' policy as a compromise no one likes and solves no
problems well.

How about we backup... and we imagine reasons why historically the per
soname scheme hasn't been used by and large by Red Hat... perhaps if
we did that there will be other aspects of packaging besides the one I
bring up that constrain your soname solution.

-jef"but its much more fun to think Red Hat packagers are just stupid
or malicious and have chosen a package naming scheme delibrately to
irk other people"spaleta

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