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

Re: RFC: Soname in rpm name

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:12:02 -0500 (EST), Sean <seanlkml sympatico ca> wrote:
> You keep missing the point.   Just because you don't think it's a corner
> case, while a fascinating bit of information doesn't mean it's important
> factor for anyone.   

I don't think i've made a judgement as to whether or not this is a
corner case. What I care about is understanding why the current naming
scheme was chosen so we can have informed debate. So far no one has
told me my obvservations are incorrect. Whether or not this historical
usage is an important consideration is a discussion that comes after
we have an understanding of what the historical usages are.  Without
an understanding of why the current naming scheme was chosen, and how
its been used.. we are not in a solid position to evaluate a change in
policy. I challenge you... as a proponent of change.. to give us your
understanding as to why the current naming policy is in place.

> You continue to miss that people have already offered
> workable solutions.   

actually.. they havent. There have been proposals  to address garbage
collecting which is not what I'm talking about at all. Unused
libraries...just take up space... and can be garbaged collected.  Used
but unmaintained libraries could become significant security concerns
over time.  Its a hard issue.. with no clean solution. How as a
package vendor do you do the  due diligence to prevent users from
running unmaintained libraries unknowingly. It's about being as honest
as possible with the users who are relying on updates to packages.  I
believe that Red Hat's current naming scheme.. is a hacked up
attempt.. to be as honest as possible with the userbase (inside the
constraints of the packaging system) about the maintainence state of
shared library packages. Is it a hack? Yep, absolutely.. but this is
the role i see the current naming scheme playing.

> Anyway, you've failed to show it has ever been an
> important factor in the past or would even be one in the future.   

Only Red Hat packages who have been using the naming scheme over the
multiple releases of rhl, rhel and fedora can give credible insight
into why the naming scheme is being used.  If I'm wrong.. im wrong.
But I think a serious discussion about changing the naming schedule
requires a serious understanding of why the current naming scheme is
being used. I challenge you as a proponent of change, to give me your
understanding of why you think the current naming scheme is being

>Nothing has changed.
Great... nothing has changed... whatever priorities have unpinned the
usage of the current naming scheme are still the same and we can can
continue to use the current naming scheme.


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