On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:52:27AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 21 September 2006 07:59, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Why have the explicit var?  Because 0.9.7a through 0.9.7c may all be
> > compatible, but 0.9.7d isn't.  If you force an automatic algo that
> > tries to (effectively) guess, you get a lot of rebuilds through a,b,c,
> > end result being folks likely update less because it becomes a bigger
> > pain in the ass.
> 
> if it isnt compatible then it shouldnt have the same SONAME, simple as 
> that ... that is after all the point of encoding the ABI version number into 
> the SONAME
> 
> forcing devs to maintain a manual var which is basically duplicating the 
> SONAME smells like maintenance nightmare

I agree; while I'm labeling it ABI, includes both bad soname handling 
and seperate sonames.

Re: forcing devs... the request was to fold revdep-rebuild into 
resolution; in other words, 3 options
1) situation gets ignored, stays as is
2) all packages are somehow fixed (ultra restrictive deps) to never 
require revdep-rebuild
3) revdep-rebulid capabilities get inline into resolution.

Feel free to point out a 4th option if I'm missing it, but for the 
request, that's what exists afaict; meanwhile, stating that pkgs are 
being stupid, while true, doesn't actually solve the issue :)

~harring