On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:19:46AM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 23:48 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 12:34:27AM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > > My concern is that such a scheme _when applied as a standard procedure > > > for all library packages_ would probably lower the barrier for including > > > backwards compatibility cruft for which there will probably no > > > interested parties to clean it up nor maintain. > > > > There's no need to, these packages can be easily marked (see my other > > replies in this thread) and removed even in cron-jobs. > > My concern not about that, but about what's included in the distro, as > in DVD's, download.fedora.redhat.com etc. There isn't anything wrong in having these packages follow the soname-in-rpmname idiom. Even if there would be no further need for concurrent libs it would solve the leftover libs of previous Fedora Core/Red Hat Linux installations. I only see added value at no real cost: the required simple garbage collector pays off immediately for not having to obsolete old forward compatibility packages (like the gcc34 example, not a library, but the same packaging issues apply here). -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpylHmRHyaTd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
