1 |
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:52:27AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Thursday 21 September 2006 07:59, Brian Harring wrote: |
3 |
> > Why have the explicit var? Because 0.9.7a through 0.9.7c may all be |
4 |
> > compatible, but 0.9.7d isn't. If you force an automatic algo that |
5 |
> > tries to (effectively) guess, you get a lot of rebuilds through a,b,c, |
6 |
> > end result being folks likely update less because it becomes a bigger |
7 |
> > pain in the ass. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> if it isnt compatible then it shouldnt have the same SONAME, simple as |
10 |
> that ... that is after all the point of encoding the ABI version number into |
11 |
> the SONAME |
12 |
> |
13 |
> forcing devs to maintain a manual var which is basically duplicating the |
14 |
> SONAME smells like maintenance nightmare |
15 |
|
16 |
I agree; while I'm labeling it ABI, includes both bad soname handling |
17 |
and seperate sonames. |
18 |
|
19 |
Re: forcing devs... the request was to fold revdep-rebuild into |
20 |
resolution; in other words, 3 options |
21 |
1) situation gets ignored, stays as is |
22 |
2) all packages are somehow fixed (ultra restrictive deps) to never |
23 |
require revdep-rebuild |
24 |
3) revdep-rebulid capabilities get inline into resolution. |
25 |
|
26 |
Feel free to point out a 4th option if I'm missing it, but for the |
27 |
request, that's what exists afaict; meanwhile, stating that pkgs are |
28 |
being stupid, while true, doesn't actually solve the issue :) |
29 |
|
30 |
~harring |