Johnny Billquist wrote:
> Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> No. The problem was not a lack of old symlimks. The problem was a lack 
> of old libraries. And this is why I said you were begging for trouble.

However, I do agree with the thought that old versions of libraries 
should not be deleted lighthartedly. Lots of things that shouldn't can 
get broken if we delete old libraries, so let's not do that.

	Johnny