On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:12:02 -0500 (EST), Sean <seanlkml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > You keep missing the point. Just because you don't think it's a corner > case, while a fascinating bit of information doesn't mean it's important > factor for anyone. I don't think i've made a judgement as to whether or not this is a corner case. What I care about is understanding why the current naming scheme was chosen so we can have informed debate. So far no one has told me my obvservations are incorrect. Whether or not this historical usage is an important consideration is a discussion that comes after we have an understanding of what the historical usages are. Without an understanding of why the current naming scheme was chosen, and how its been used.. we are not in a solid position to evaluate a change in policy. I challenge you... as a proponent of change.. to give us your understanding as to why the current naming policy is in place. > You continue to miss that people have already offered > workable solutions. actually.. they havent. There have been proposals to address garbage collecting which is not what I'm talking about at all. Unused libraries...just take up space... and can be garbaged collected. Used but unmaintained libraries could become significant security concerns over time. Its a hard issue.. with no clean solution. How as a package vendor do you do the due diligence to prevent users from running unmaintained libraries unknowingly. It's about being as honest as possible with the users who are relying on updates to packages. I believe that Red Hat's current naming scheme.. is a hacked up attempt.. to be as honest as possible with the userbase (inside the constraints of the packaging system) about the maintainence state of shared library packages. Is it a hack? Yep, absolutely.. but this is the role i see the current naming scheme playing. > Anyway, you've failed to show it has ever been an > important factor in the past or would even be one in the future. Only Red Hat packages who have been using the naming scheme over the multiple releases of rhl, rhel and fedora can give credible insight into why the naming scheme is being used. If I'm wrong.. im wrong. But I think a serious discussion about changing the naming schedule requires a serious understanding of why the current naming scheme is being used. I challenge you as a proponent of change, to give me your understanding of why you think the current naming scheme is being used. >Nothing has changed. Great... nothing has changed... whatever priorities have unpinned the usage of the current naming scheme are still the same and we can can continue to use the current naming scheme. -jef
