On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:15:14 -0500, Sean Middleditch > <elanthis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > We _have_ had this problem, btw. The problem is that it's not generally > > developers that notice it. It's the user that just want to have their > > machine work. I go to install third party app Foo from Foo's web site, > > it needs libbar.so.2, Fedora only has libbar.so.1, and many other apps > > on the net require libbar.so.1. > > A third part website is packaging libbar.so.2 in a package of the > same package name as Feodora's libbar.so.1? Why would a third party > site do that? Unless the intention was to replace the Fedora package? > Isn't this an example of the care 3rd party packagers should be taking > to make sure their packages work well with Core? Jeff, this implementation forces both 3rd party packagers as well as Red Hat and Fedora Extras to be more strict than it could be. It is technical possible to lift these limitations and that's what I think Sean is talking about. Why a 3rd party packager is updating a core package may be for various reasons, some more valid as others. Not all 3rd party packagers replace core (library) packages because we know it potentially introduces problems. But technically speaking there is no real reason to have this limitation. -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
