El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 10:42 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> 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.
Also think we are not able to fix that broken linkage problems alone,
even distributions supplying precompiled packages need to rebuild their
packages against latest version due that breakages before releasing new
packages to the users.