On 06/06/2012 10:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:21:40 -0700
> Zac Medico <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> You'd have a slot per ABI, and be encouraged to allow multiple
>>> versions of glib to be installed in parallel. If you really
>>> couldn't do that (and you should think very carefully before saying
>>> you can't, since this directly affects users in a huge way), you
>>> can make the slots block each other.
>> It seems like you're trying to make glib fit your SLOT operator model,
>> even though it's a natural fit for the ABI_SLOT operator model.
> No, I'm trying to strongly encourage people to make proper use of slots
> to avoid having mass breakages and annoyances on user systems, even if
> it means more work for developers.
But aren't you also trying to make them deviate from upstreams' release
> Broken linkage due to an upgrade really shouldn't happen.
It's certainly not ideal, but wouldn't it be useful to have the
flexibility to accommodate it? Let's be practical.