Hi,
On 05/05/15 19:36, Laurent Blume wrote:
Le 2015/05/05 10:05 +0200, Riccardo Mottola a écrit:
Hi,
well, you somehow convinced me that we need a versioned developer
package. My guts still don't like it, but what you say makes a lot of
sense.
Does it work not having the symlink at all?
Maybe. Up to you to prove it. Hey, you broke it ;-)
Personally, seeing Linux distros have it, I think it's needed.
hey, I just upgraded... I didn't "break it" more than the last revision,
it is just necessary to update a dozen of packages, as happened probably
last time libpng's soname was upgraded.
1) respin 1.5 versioned dev without the symlink
2) respin 1.6 versioned dev without the symlink
respinnin a non-versioned dev with "which" comments "where" seems a lot
of hassle.
I don't understand what you tried to say here. FWIW, I'm in favor of the
symlink to be in the most recent version, whatever that is, not having
an additional unversioned package that contains only that link.
Then probably didn't understand your proposal, sorry. Except for actual
status which we need to recover, supposing that 15 had already a
versioned package, I would have just upgraded to 16, producing another
one, but incompatible to the 16, since both would have the symlink?
In other words, the current dev package is fine, except you want it to
have a versioned name? Let's start with that easy fix.
Do you want then to produce the same versioned package for the old 15
version, doing a partial revert of the Makefile? Fine too. What is it
for, if you anyway have a symlink in the 16 version? it would overwrite
a file.
I can take care of the above steps. But you still have packages
depending on the "old" unversioned one, right? those need to be updated
anyway.
Riccardo
