On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:19:46AM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 23:48 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 12:34:27AM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > My concern is that such a scheme _when applied as a standard procedure
> > for all library packages_ would probably lower the barrier for including
> > backwards compatibility cruft for which there will probably no
> > interested parties to clean it up nor maintain.
>
> There's no need to, these packages can be easily marked (see my other
> replies in this thread) and removed even in cron-jobs.
My concern not about that, but about what's included in the distro, as
in DVD's,
download.fedora.redhat.com etc.
There isn't anything wrong in having these packages follow the
soname-in-rpmname idiom. Even if there would be no further need for
concurrent libs it would solve the leftover libs of previous Fedora
Core/Red Hat Linux installations.
I only see added value at no real cost: the required simple garbage
collector pays off immediately for not having to obsolete old forward
compatibility packages (like the gcc34 example, not a library, but the
same packaging issues apply here).
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net