On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 12:26:59AM +0100, fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 09:18:00AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > > > I think you miss a point here. After a rebuild NONE of the packages > > in the repos depend on the old library. So there is no point in us > > packaging the old library for compatibilty, as none is needed. We > > only support the latest packages in the repos, so if you have issues > > with old versions of packages or packages from unsupported sources, > > then it is up to you to fix them. > > It seems you didn't even read what I wrote. > > I do *not* propose to keep old versions in the repo. > I did even write explicitly that I consider it normal > for all packages in a repo to depend on only one > library version. > > I *do* propose to not remove the actual old library > files when installing a new one with a different major > version. That's all. > > In other words, do not *force* a user to update all > app using a library just because one of them requires > a newer version. Doing this leaves the user with a > broken system, possibly at the most inconvenient time. > Heh? The idea of a rolling distro also applies to the AUR. The AUR as a part of Arch is as "rooling" as Arch is. Btw, there are workarounds like "libpng12" in the AUR, if you don't want to rebuild all of your own built application. --
