On 03/28/2014 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
<[email protected]> wrote:
All in all, this isn't a bad idea on the surface, but the first
arguement shows immediately when this is scaled up. How many other
packages have multiple libs with different sonames? Off hand, I can
think of poplar, but I'm sure there must be more. Is it really
scalable, desirable, or sane, to break each package on the system into
multiple different virtuals like this?
Clever idea, actually, though I'd be interested in whether anybody
else can think of any unintended consequences.
My objection to what happened with the introduction of these virtuals
was that they directly affected eudev and yet the eudev team was not
consulted. The question of "unintended consequences" is precisely why
design decisions should be discussed on this list. The following bug
shows who was invovled in the discussion:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=506034. (I just added the eudev
team but it was not there until just now.) We now face similar design
idiosyncrasies with respect to a request that ABI information be
included in CHOSTs for MIPS which does not conform to gnuconfig
standards. To avoid engineering ourselves into corners, we really need
to have as many smart people looking at a design change as possible
before it is implemented, not after.
--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail : [email protected]
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
