--Signature=_Thu__29_Mar_2007_11_22_38_-0500_+v7gazCWu/Lp1g4_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:09:56 -0400
"Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:

> I think there's a deeper issue here.  Suppose that he'd started with
> 3.1, installed those packages, then upgraded to (say) 5.0.
> Presumably, the "delete obsolete files" part of the upgrade would
> remove libssl.so.3, etc., at which point his packages no longer
> work.  That seems to be a serious break in backwards compatibility.
> (Or am I missing something?)
Hi,
You shot first but I was thinking about it in simillar way. AFAIK in my
example, ther was no conflict of libraries but lack of old symlinks. I
vote for keeping them for one or two generation back. Symlinks cost
nothing.

Regards,
pp

--
Przemysław Pawełczyk <pp@kv.net.pl>

--Signature=_Thu__29_Mar_2007_11_22_38_-0500_+v7gazCWu/Lp1g4_
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFGC+fOD9+eS/1tsfYRAh2cAKCPMH+7ob6ubPokDUqicgM6J35uNgCeOEhO
JLTPqf86QzRO12yR2+7lFbc=
=JwCN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Signature=_Thu__29_Mar_2007_11_22_38_-0500_+v7gazCWu/Lp1g4_--