On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:02:51 +0100, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > OK, neither will the soname-in-the-rpmname address this in any way, > positive or negative, and as said the issue you raise is far more > involved and w/o any good solution. The leaf detection would > circumstantially help here, but that wouldn't be the main focus. On the other hand keeping packages the same name when an older soname expires handles the case i bring up exceedingly well. package libfoo in fc3 provides libfoo.so.1 package libfoo in fc4 provides libfoo.so.2. Upgrades from fc3 to fc4 and libfoo.so.1 is no longer on the system. Works like a charm at keeping unmaintained library versions off the system. It works so well in fact.. that it almost seems like it was a design goal for naming library packages without sonames. And thats the point I'm trying to make. Moving to a per soname when its absolutely not needed has consquences for other aspects of packaging. As soon as the proponents for a soname-in-the-rpmname have a workable proposed solution to the problem I bring up, I'll gladly stop bringing it up. -jef
