On 04-Aug-03, 12:42 (CDT), Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Uh, no. Changing the binary package name the way we've always
> > handled soname changes, except with a small number of very popular
> > libraries. It's a lot less work, and it doesn't require creating a
> > new package that will be orphaned almost instantly. If it turns out
> > to be a problem for a particular library, and oldlibs package can
> > be created for it afterwards, when the need for it has been demonstrated.
>
> And of the users? Please read the social contract.
How are the users harmed? The binary package name and library soname
*change*, so the old library will not be removed, so currently installed
software will continue to work. For a few days, in *unstable*, some
packages will not be installable. I hardly see this as a violation of
the Social Contract.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
