Subject: Re: pkg/12856
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Frederick Bruckman <email@example.com>
Date: 05/08/2001 10:27:58
Thor Simon <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> To get this to all build and install right, it may be necessary to
> rename the libpng package so that both an old version of libpng
> (for old apps linked to libpng.so.1) and a new version (for new
> apps, linked to libpng.so.>1) can be installed at once without
> resorting to pkg_delete -O or other hackery.
Of course, all binary packages built against png-1.06 and earlier
would still be broken, because they have dependencies like "png>=1.06"
bundled into them, and there's no way to express, to "pkg_add", the
idea of a range.
What we could do, is bump the "png" package's shared library version,
bump the nb version of the package, bump the depends of all packages
that depend on png directly, and bump the nb version of all packages
that depend on png directly or indirectly. This would ensure that no
new binary packages are as broken as the existing ones (and would not
overwrite the old ones on the server, for those who want to stay with
the old "png"), but it would, on the down side, force everyone who
presently has "png"-dependent packages installed on their system to
upgrade "png" and rebuild them all, so in that sense, it wouldn't
address your chief complaint at all.
Your idea of changing the package name for shared library version
bumps is an interesting one. I've been kicking around an idea, of
changing the name of the _installed_ package instead. My experiments
so far involve "pkg_delete -O" and "pkg_admin rebuild" trickery, but I
anticipate that doing this right will involve changes to "pkg_add" and
"pkg_delete", at least.