At 9:51 Uhr -0400 25.04.2002, David R. Morrison wrote: >Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> At 7:22 Uhr -0400 25.04.2002, David R. Morrison wrote: >> >[snip] >> >> >So I would think that this package should be split into three pieces, >> >maybe the third one to be called gdk-pixbuf-loaders. It would be treated >> >like the binaries are treated in some other pakcages. Splitting >>it off gives >> >the possibility of allowing the dkpg/shlibs system to install multiple >> >versioned copies of the dylibs, without getting conflicts between .so >> >files. >> >> I am not sure that would actually work, see above: the loadable >> modules might not work with different versions of the .dylibs. >> > >The same is true of binaries. > >Here was my idea: > >SplitOff: << > Package: %N-shlibs >... ><< >SplitOff2: << > Package: %N-loaders > Depends: %N-shlibs (= %v-%r) > Files: lib/gdk-pixbuf/loaders ><< > >That's what we do with binaries.
Only that this doesn't prevent "gdk-pixbuf22-loaders" to be installed in parallel to "gdk-pixbuf23-loaders". They will collide, though, because both contain the same files. So you also need a conflicts for that. > Maybe the (= %v-%r) is too restrictive, >but eventually that will be handled by the dpkg/shlibs system, to get >the correct versions in place. > >Other packages would need to say "Depends: gdk-pixbuf-loaders" when >appropriate. > >I guess we might call it gdk-pixbuf-plugins instead; that might be more >clear. You realize that you will have to update several dozens of packages then? Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
