2008/9/23 Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I just want to >> avoid adding odd Goboisms if other options exist. > > I think that's a wise principle (even though I failed to follow it in the > past). > Trying to avoid Goboisms is a good principle, but what exactly is the Goboism in this case (I'm sure there is one but I can't pinpoint it).
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Benjamin Bruheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Also, wouldn't the non-Current executables possibly fail if the >> executable uses the legacy tree? > > Yes. And not only the legacy tree, but some of its libraries may have > their symlinks overwritten under /S/L/L, etc (e.g. it's quite likely > that /bin/konqueror-3 and /bin/konqueror-4 wouldn't work at the same > time). That's an important point to keep in mind. That's good > motivation to add versioned executables only in specific, needed, > known-to-work cases. > True, even though if an application need a specific library version it should link against that version (libfoo.so.3) instead of the generic version (libfoo.so). Then that version's link is not overwritten as the name is unique. But even if they do it's not even sure that the library developer has set the library versions correct, so, yes, there's a risk that multiple versions of the same application will break. Is this risk enough to not have versioned executables? -- /Jonas _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
