On Tuesday 01 September 2009 12:54:21 Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 07:45:53AM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > In <20090901055635.gc6...@glandium.org>, Mike Hommey wrote: > > >On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 04:03:06PM -0700, Joe Smith wrote: > > >> Another issue sprung up, though. What I need to be able to do now is > > >> have libngi3 (0.8) and libngi3 (0.9) installed at the same time. > > >> They > > >> don't share any binaries that are the same. > > > > > >Why would you want that, actually ? Most of the time, this is not > > >something you'd want. If they are compatible, you don't even need that. > > >If they are not compatible, then the SONAME should be changed, not the > > >package name. > > > > [C]hanging the (binary) package name could possibly allow > > side-by-side installation of the old ABI and the new ABI. > > It doesn't possibly allow it, it *does* allow it, since different ABIs > *must* have different package and library names.
If the library package also ships utility binaries or data[1], changing the binary package name would not allow side-by-side installation since the packages would still conflict. I was speaking in the general case. For this package, separate binary package names (and SO_VERSIONs) will all side-by-side installation. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/ [1] For example, because they are/were too small to in a separate binary package.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
