On 02/08/2010 04:05 PM, fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:38:46PM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
A package is not a single .so file, unless that is your proposal - to
split all .so files into their own packages.
Here is a list of files that would conflict if this was done with libpng:
libpng /usr/bin/libpng-config
libpng /usr/bin/libpng12-config
libpng /usr/bin/png2pnm
libpng /usr/bin/pnm2png
libpng /usr/include/libpng12/png.h
libpng /usr/include/libpng12/pngconf.h
libpng /usr/include/png.h
libpng /usr/include/pngconf.h
libpng /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libpng.pc
libpng /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libpng12.pc
libpng /usr/share/licenses/libpng/LICENSE
libpng /usr/share/man/man3/libpng.3.gz
libpng /usr/share/man/man3/libpngpf.3.gz
libpng /usr/share/man/man5/png.5.gz
If these files are in the same package, they will
be replaced together with the library. As far as
package management is concerned the old version
doesn't exist anymore. The only thing that remains
of it is the actual binary and one symlink, to be
used by apps that have been linked with it. All
the rest can be forgotten.
If these files are not in the same package, there
should be a dependency relation so they are still
replaced together with the binary library file.
All other distros I've used before just did this,
no fuss, no problems.
Besides, what is the point of a 'rolling release'
if you are still forced to do bulk updates as a
side effect ? With a non-rolling versioned release
at least this happens only when you expect it.
Ciao,
I assume the reason Arch doesn't do this is to make it easy to build
packages. If you want an example of how "amazing" splitting packages up
is, take a look at Ubuntu's package for Pidgin, then look at Arch's
PKGBUILD. Good look replacing any Ubuntu package with your own custom
version without spending 3 days editing files every time there's an update.
Honestly, building a library from the AUR when you need it is much
simpler than packaging everything Ubuntu style.
