On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 15:59:52 -0400 Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Chris Metzler wrote: > > But that's the best way it can play out. The worst way -- which is > > thankfully uncommon, but can and does happen -- is if Depends or > > Conflicts don't catch the problem. An example: package A in stable > > requires libfoo version 2.4 or greater; user installs package B, which > > requires libfoo version 3.1, and so that gets brought along, replacing > > v2.4; package A isn't marked for removal because 3.1 > 2.0; but > > software compiled against libfoo v2.4 chokes with libfoo v3.1, and so > > the binaries in package A are now broken). The package manager for > > libfoo can't set Conflicts: for *everything* compiled against earlier > > versions of libfoo because libfoo is just too commonly used. And if > > this happens with something like glibc, you're hosed. > > This scenario is always a bug in libfoo for breaking backwards > compatability without changing its soname, and Debian has plenty of > standard ways to deal with it that don't involve conflicting with lots > of packages. If you see something like this, file a bug report.
Yeah. It still happens, though, viz. getting bit by #241360.
-c
--
Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
pgpfguEESvWPu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
