On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:52:27AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 21 September 2006 07:59, Brian Harring wrote: > > Why have the explicit var? Because 0.9.7a through 0.9.7c may all be > > compatible, but 0.9.7d isn't. If you force an automatic algo that > > tries to (effectively) guess, you get a lot of rebuilds through a,b,c, > > end result being folks likely update less because it becomes a bigger > > pain in the ass. > > if it isnt compatible then it shouldnt have the same SONAME, simple as > that ... that is after all the point of encoding the ABI version number into > the SONAME > > forcing devs to maintain a manual var which is basically duplicating the > SONAME smells like maintenance nightmare
I agree; while I'm labeling it ABI, includes both bad soname handling and seperate sonames. Re: forcing devs... the request was to fold revdep-rebuild into resolution; in other words, 3 options 1) situation gets ignored, stays as is 2) all packages are somehow fixed (ultra restrictive deps) to never require revdep-rebuild 3) revdep-rebulid capabilities get inline into resolution. Feel free to point out a 4th option if I'm missing it, but for the request, that's what exists afaict; meanwhile, stating that pkgs are being stupid, while true, doesn't actually solve the issue :) ~harring
pgpj0tlMIO7jl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
