Subject: Re: make update hell
To: Alistair Crooks <>
From: Pavel Cahyna <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 10/10/2004 16:54:10
Hello, thank you for your interest in this discussion.

> On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 01:37:30PM +0200, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
> > > How do you propose to provide many instances of a library with the
> > > same major number in the same directory?
> > 
> > I don't propose anything like this. Why should there be many instances of
> > a library with same major number? If the major number is the same, they
> > are compatible, so one instance should be enough.
> So your stance has moved to that of "it doesn't matter what minor version
> of the shared library is used, because it's compatible through the major
> version branded into the SONAME in the binary"?

Yes, exactly. (Of course, one need the minor number to be not less than
the one with which the program was built. But it is enough to have one
which satisfies this constraint for all the programs installed, and
because minor numbers are strictly ordered, one such (that one with the
highest minor version) should always exist.) Also I don't see how my
stance has moved, but probably I wasn't clear from the beginning.

Is this view incorrect?

> > libraries it seems to be an overkill. I also think that concerns raised by
> > Greg A. Woods in
> > may be valid.
> I am absolutely distraught that Greg's views are different from my own.

Sorry, I'm not sure that I understand, not being an English native

> > Also your paper talks about "dynamic PLIST". Does this mean that the list
> > of package's content will be automaticaly generated when a package is
> > built? That would be really wrong, IMHO. I encountered several times that
> > some of the files in the PLIST were not built or were installed elsewhere.
> > It always meant that there was an actual problem and such packages never
> > worked properly. If the PLIST is static, such problems can be detected
> > more easily. (I would prefer to be warned more loudly about this problem -
> > for example by having a mail to root be sent when this happens.) If the
> > PLIST was dynamically generated, I would never know that something is
> > wrong.
> PLISTs can either by dynamic or static, depending on the contents of
> the PLIST_TYPE definition.  It takes the values "dynamic", and ... 
> err ...  "static". If you don't like dynamic PLISTs, that's fine,
> you don't have to use them.

OK, thanks.

Bye	Pavel