| 1 |
On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Peter Volkov wrote: |
| 2 |
> В Срд, 16/01/2008 в 06:09 -0500, Mike Frysinger пишет: |
| 3 |
> > if two packages provide the same binary and they blocked each other, a |
| 4 |
> > move would be doable as it would be impossible for the two packages to be |
| 5 |
> > installed simultaneously. but as Petteri points out, libdca/libdts dont |
| 6 |
> > provide the same SONAME so a package move wouldnt be possible. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Does this requirement stay for programs? I saw we moved ethereal to |
| 9 |
> wireshark. Was that wrong? Do we have any mechanism to indicate that the |
| 10 |
> package was renamed and upgrading should continue with another package? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
for libraries with changed SONAMEs, it's def a no-no. for programs, it's up |
| 13 |
for debate, especially considering with the wireshark rename, you most likely |
| 14 |
had an upgrade right after. the automatic package move => upgrade is a much |
| 15 |
nicer user upgrade experience than a blocker. for the edge case where the |
| 16 |
package was installed but not in world, you could argue that the lack of an |
| 17 |
automatic upgrade is still ok since even unmoved, it would have not triggered |
| 18 |
the block/upgrade step. |
| 19 |
-mike |
Archives