On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 12:27:57AM +0100, vlad wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 11:54:43PM +0100, fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 12:36:55AM +0200, Ionut Biru wrote: > > > > > you are focusing only on .so which is different but this schema will > > > work only if the package is split in lib, -dev, whatever as now, the > > > headers will conflict since it have the same name on the same > > > location. > > > > Not true. When a new version is installed, the > > headers are replaced, and the symlink from > > 'libfoo.so' is modified to the new version. > > > > In a link step you refer to the lib as '-lfoo' > > which gets translated (via that symlink) into > > 'libfoo.so.N', the newest installed version. > > > > If you have separate -dev and -lib packages > > (and Arch hasn't AFAICS) it is the package > > manager's job to always replace both in sync. > > Nothing magical about that, all distros I used > > before just did it that way. > > > Afais a pointless discussion. Arch _is_ a rolling distro. Keeping the old *.so.1.2.3 and *.so.1 (and only those) when a new version is installed is *not* contradictory to being a rolling release. I'd even say that a rolling release requires this even more than a fully versioned one, where everything is replaced anyway if you update. Ciao, -- FA O tu, che porte, correndo si ? E guerra e morte !
