On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:58:23AM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Patrice Dumas (pertusus@xxxxxxx) said: > > If something is added between 2.8 and 2.10 while ABI is kept compatible > > and the soname isn't changed, and that new thing is needed, then the > > soname is not enough. > > Only in the case when you're running something built against, say > Fedora 8, on Fedora < 8. (Or Fedora 8 from some number of months > ago, I suppose, if people are gratuitously upgrading libraries.) As said this has happened with real life use cases: Users did install some bare Fedora Core X w/o updates, then considered it proper to first upgrade synaptic which required updated (but still within the same Fedora Core release) gtk/glib etc. libs and then wouldn't start on the non-updated Fedora Core system. If this depsolver & GUI is your preferred method of updating then you are suddenly in a chicken/egg situation - you need to depsolver to update the system and the depsolver needs the system to be updated to even start. So for some cases like for deplsovers and their GUIs maybe adding strict automatic dependencies (e.g. like Requires: foo >= %(rpm -q foo)) is a safe keeper to not run into similar situations again. Or rephrased: ABI backward-compatibility (which constant sonames imply) is not enough if the matter of upgrade ordering matters. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpZMIlS0HUj3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
