Re: is liblzf still missing form sets?

[Iain Hibbert <plunky%rya-online.net@localhost>]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012, John Nemeth wrote:
>
> >     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.

No he is correct; it has been this way for a long while.. there is a
comment about it at the head of distrib/sets/lists/base/mi and I believe
postinstall handles removal of the old files when appropriate.

regards
iain