Vincent Bernat wrote: > I don't see exactly what point you try to make here. From a technical > point of view, I see some advantages to handle this minor upgrade in the > same way as an ABI transition (the strongest one being to ensure that > the old packages do not lie around).
this is not exactly the same as an ABI transition because the new library package cannot be simultaneously installed with the previous SONAME of the library package, potentially breaking locally compiled binaries that link against the old SONAME or making packages that depend on libprotobuf2 or libprotobuf3 mutually uninstallable. one of the strengths of debian is that multiple SONAMEs of the same library can be simultaneously installed, effecting smooth upgrades. > This can be of course discussed but I don't see exactly the point to > discuss it outside of the bug report, with the sponsor and > ftpmasters. And I don't see what exactly is the contribution of saying > that it is "severely brain-damaged". Will you yell at ftpmasters/mentors > each time you see that a package is not perfect? i said "severely brain-damaged" (perhaps this is too strong a phrase given the paucity of rdeps; if e.g. protobuf-c-compiler were in the archive this change would have made it uninstallable simultaneously with protobuf-compiler) because it defeats the entire point of adding the SONAME major version to binary library package names. i hope this is merely an oversight caused by overwork / haste rather than a trend. -- Robert Edmonds edmo...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
