[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: is liblzf still missing form sets?
On 17 September 2012 02:06, John Nemeth <jnemeth%victoria.tc.ca@localhost>
> 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.
Maybe we need a new 'obsoleteso' token, which mean postinstall will
leave it alone by default, but build.sh can use to clean out
Main Index |
Thread Index |