On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 01:26:43AM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:17:00PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > You wrote: > > > > The libxul0d package has correct shlibs, so please don't depend on > > > > strict > > > > versions of it. > > > > > > libxul0d includes non-frozen interfaces. Are you going to change the > > > package name every time those change? > > > > That's what the soname is for. > > Both the soname and the package name must be changed so that package > management tools can avoid installing binary-incompatible libraries and > applications. > > > Anyways, even without a package name > > change, your dependencies are too tight. You can't even install > > videolink with libxul0d 1.8.0.5-3 in unstable. > > If you can assure me that a videolink package built against the current > libxul-dev should be binary-compatible with every future version of > libxul0d then I will remove the additional versioned dependency. I > would love to do without the versioned dependency, but my current > understanding is that you cannot provide this assurance.
Why do you think I added an soname to libxul ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
