On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:57:40 -0600, Richi Plana wrote: > It's certainly not unheard of for different packages to provide the same > implementation of an interface. In fact, we should probably start > thinking of coming up for solutions for such a scenario. Technically, the different packages should only offer the same implementation of an interface if they make it available in a public place of the run-time environment where it is found by default by all components which may require a given implementation. General examples for such places are the dynamic linker's search paths for shared libraries [1], Perl/Python module directories, and most likely similar directories for Mono and other programming-language run-time environments. If, however, they store the implementation in a private directory, where it doesn't satisfy run-time requirements by default, they should not advertise the implemented interface [via the RPM system]. It bears the risk of breaking other packages like with this Perl module example: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/247113 -- [1] The automatic SONAME Provides are a smoldering fire, since by default the soname for any lib in a private path is provided by a pkg, leading to dangers like: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/278181 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
