Hello,

thanks for our reply.

> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 12:09:02AM +0200, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
> If I'm not misrepresenting you, you're taking the view that package
> views is too heavyweight for shared libs, ...

Yes,

> ... therefore you think it's too
> heavyweight in general.  I disagree with the first part of that, and

no, I think that in general they can be very useful.

> think that they are a general solution to a problem that exists and is
> with us right now.  The fact that this thread is called "make update
> hell" should tell us that maybe other people see this as a general
> problem, too.
> 
> Package views were conceived not just for shared libraries, but for
> whole software suites, so that multiple versions of conflicting
> packages can be installed at any one time, and things will work
> properly.  So that you can try out new versions of existing packages

I believe that package views are suited for software which doesn't
otherwise support installation of multiple versions. Since shared
libraries are designed in a way that multiple versions don't conflict with
each other, I don't see why pkg. views are needed in that case.

> without compromising existing installations.  Or you can try
> development versions on the same machine as they will be running once
> in production, so that configuration files need minimal, if any,
> modification.

OK. I don't say that pkg. views are useless.

> Having said all that about the holistic view, I also believe that
> package views work perfectly with shared libraries - in fact, that's
> one area in which I believe they excel.

How do they do it? From your pkgviews document, it seems that every time a
shared library is recompiled, it is installed without the old one being
removed. Old packages continue to work with the old one, new with the new
one. Am I right? 

Bye 	Pavel