On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:54:30 -0500 (EST), Sean <seanlkml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Why not propose a solution that does what you want instead of imposing > this artificial barrier on others trying to solve different problems? I'm explaining a situation that the current naming method handles better than the proposed per soname does. I'm not arguing for any policy change at all, you are. if you want to argue for a policy change I would hope that you are open minded enough to keep other issues other than your primary concern in mind. The soname in package policy you would like to see for all packages... will negatively impact the aspect of packaging I bring up compared to the current method of doing the per sonaming on an as needed basis. Packaging policy is a complex issue, and while you would like to focus on one aspect and build a policy that makes that one aspect easier to deal with... it has consequences for other aspects of packaging. I'd love a perfect solution that everyone will like that solves all problems, but in the meantime I'm not horribly upset with the 'as needed' policy as a compromise no one likes and solves no problems well. How about we backup... and we imagine reasons why historically the per soname scheme hasn't been used by and large by Red Hat... perhaps if we did that there will be other aspects of packaging besides the one I bring up that constrain your soname solution. -jef"but its much more fun to think Red Hat packagers are just stupid or malicious and have chosen a package naming scheme delibrately to irk other people"spaleta
