On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:57:27PM +0100, John Pilkington wrote:
> Axel: I've just been browsing my installed myth packages (0.23-231)
> in smart and all that I found having a qt dependency showed it could
> be satisfied by _either_ qt 1:4.5.3-7 or 1:4.6.2-8
> 
> On the myth-users' list Jarod expressed surprise that rpm hadn't
> picked up the need for the newer version, but it looks as if rpm was
> getting it right.

rpm cannot get it right, the soname ABI convention is not backward
compatible with clients of a younger library. The (bad) convention is
to no soname bump if there are only new symbols added, which ensures
functionality when upgrading only the libraries, but breaks upgrading
only clients to them that have picked up the new symbols.

So rpm can only compare sonames and if the soname conventions are
flawed rpm is tricked into breaking as well.

> Probably people who had already updated qt wouldn't have problems,
> but anyone trying to upgrade _only_ mythtv would get caught out.
> 
> Sorry if all this is blindingly obvious...

What is "obvious" is that Fedora's update model requires you to stay
up2date with the latest packages shipped in updates-released.

The above sentence sound like I'm criticizing this, but I'm not,
Fedora is evolving at the pace my and most other people's desktop
needs want it to, but the price is that you need to stay current as it
has more and more the nature of a rolling release model with ABI/APIs
changing within a release's lifetime.

Ensuring stable ABI/APIs during a projects lifetime is what
RHEL/CentOS/SL/etc are more about, but even there frequent updates
against the base repos are a must for various reasons.

E.g. the obvious part and what people should be missionarily preaching
is to keep up2date against the distribution's main repositories.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpHmUfFWEXKS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
atrpms-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users

Reply via email to