Re: is liblzf still missing form sets?

[Hisashi T Fujinaka <htodd%twofifty.com@localhost>]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012, John Nemeth wrote:

> On Jan 2,  3:35am, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
> } On Sun, 16 Sep 2012, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> } > On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 02:47:45PM -0700, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
> } >> I'll try re-syncing but I don't see it.
> } >
> } > expn "still".  AFAICT, it was in the appropriate sets before and still
> } > is now.
> }
> } Aha. Is it because it's liblzf.1.0 now and you forgot to mark 0.0 as
> } obsolete or however it's done?
>
>     It is.  The "however it's done" is to remove the old major
> versions from the set lists, which means you'll need to clean out
> DESTDIR.  It is done this way, because marking them as obsolete would
> cause them to be removed by postinstall when somebody upgrades their
> system.  This would be bad because it would cause apps linked against
> the previous major version to stop working.  This is the way it has
> been for a very long time for ALL shared libraries.  In other words,
> this is normal.  It should be noted in UPDATING, but that doesn't
> change how you need to handle it.

I'm not sure this is correct, is it? the .0 stays around but the .0.0 is
marked as obsolete. I'm not sure since I'm not the sets guy but it
usually works and sometimes it doesn't. I thought it had to do with
major vs. minor, but all I do is mention that it's broken and someone
else fixes it.

If you'd like me to quit building and reporting failures, I can do that
too.

--
Hisashi T Fujinaka - htodd%twofifty.com@localhost
BSEE(6/86) + BSChem(3/95) + BAEnglish(8/95) + MSCS(8/03) + $2.50 = latte