On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 11:39:34AM -0500, Owen Taylor wrote: > On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 16:45 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > Thoughts? > > > Is this feasible to implement in a clean way? > > > Will this fail in any corner cases? > > > > Supporting a broken library versioning scheme by automated rpm > > workarounds doesn't sound like a good idea. You are better off trying > > to educate upstream authors to start bumping up the major version > > every decade or so ... > > > > If you start doing so with glib2 you'l have to do the same with pango, > > gtk2, atk, ... (... doesn't stop ...) > > Why would we change the major version of GLib when we haven't broken > binary compatibility? Isn't compatibility broken (be it forward or backward), if I build against glib 2.6, but ldd still allows runtime linking against glib 2.4 which is missing symbols? That's not an rpm issue (therfore also nothing rpm should try to save), it seems to break at a lower level. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpZiVIbvokCu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
