Hi Dave,

 I am not (any more) contesting the splitting into foo and foo-shlibs
packages. I undderstand the rationale behind this decision. What I am
still not liking is the splitting-off of the fo-bin packages.

"David R. Morrison" wrote:

> We need the third package, though, because the binaries won't have
> the version number in their pathnames so they can't go with the libraries,
> and other things might depend on them so they can't go with the headers.

But if the libraries are upgraded in a non-compatible way, I would bet
that in many cases the binaries will not be compatible, either, although
this might be hard to find out. The orbit-idl that had been biting me,
for example, has an option --libIDL-version that currently gives "libIDL
0.6.8 (CORBA 2.2)", same as defined in the header file 

So since their names are not version-dependent, the foo-bins would have
to go with the headers. If you want nothing to depend on the header
package, well, too bad, we have just proved that the whole scheme is
impossible :-)

> I've just thought of something which might help with backward-compatibility.
> What if the package foo (which contains headers) were given a dependency
>   Depends: foo-shlibs (= current.version), foo-bin

I think this is needs to be done immediately.

Martin (back to trying whether installing other foo-bins solves some
more problems)

Fink-devel mailing list

Reply via email to