On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:46:59AM +0200, Ansgar wrote: > 2. Coinstallability should be mentioned as a concern for libraries > with many reverse dependencies, but should explictly state that this > requires the entire dependency chain to be coinstallable. Note that > "Depends: libfoo-common (>= X)" runs into the risk that newer > libfoo-common packages break older library versions and are safe only > when extraordinary care is taken; the same is true for > "libfoo-bin". (One could use libfooX-common, libfooX-bin packages > where data and helper binaries are installed into paths that change > with the SONAME such as /usr/lib/libfooX/libfoo-helper.)
During an upgrade even if the file libfoo.so.N is removed, programs linked against libfoo.so.N might still be running and might still attempt to access files in libfoo-common or libfoo-bin. So the new libfoo-common/libfoo-bin still need to be compatible with the old libfoo.so.N, Given the library packages only contain a library file, they cannot have file conflicts with other packages so coinstability should not be an issue. So policy should continue to require coinstability. Cheers, -- Bill. <[email protected]> Imagine a large red swirl here.
