[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Dpkg Update Proposal



Craig Sanders wrote:
> i agree. in fact, it's more like a solution searching for a problem than
> even a superficial problem.

It's a problem that is only evident to people who haven't lived with it for
years. That doesn't mean it's not a problem.

> from the descriptions that have been posted of how rpm handles
> installing multiple versions of a package, i am *very* glad that debian
> doesn't do anything even remotely similar. that way lies madness (and a
> broken system).

Just because rpm does it wrong doesn't mean dpkg couldn't do it right.

> the following are currently installed on my workstation.  
> 
> ii  libgtk1         1.0.6-2        The GIMP Toolkit set of widgets for X
> ii  libgtk1.1       1.1.2-2        The GIMP Toolkit set of widgets for X, unsta
> ii  libgtk1.1.11    1.1.11-1       The GIMP Toolkit set of widgets for X, unsta
> ii  libgtk1.1.12    1.1.12-1       The GIMP Toolkit set of widgets for X, unsta
> ii  libgtk1.1.12-de 1.1.12-1       Development files for the GIMP Toolkit, unst
> ii  libgtk1.1.12-do 1.1.12-1       Documentation for the GIMP Toolkit, unstable
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
By the way, this also illistrates another facet of the problem. Dpkg wasn't
even designed with package names this long in mind.

> debian's way of handling this allows for all versions of libgtk to be
> installed simultaneously, allowing progress AND backwards compatibility
> without conflict.

And there's no reason installing multiple versions of a package and using
versioned dependancies and conflicts wouldn't allow the same things.

> BTW, this is only a "problem" because the upstream libgtk1.1.x changes
> the programming interface without changing the .so number. they've got
> valid reasons for doing so (and they do advertise that fact), so there's
> really no need to come up with a general solution to a specific problem
> with one or two unstable/rapid development upstream packages.
> 
> as soon as libgtk stabilises, the problem will go away of it's own
> accord. in the meantime, we can live with a few extra packages in our
> unstable dist.

This isn't just something that affects a few developmental packages. It
affects packages like these:

libc5
libc6
procmeter
procmeter3
ncftp
ncftp2
gimp
gimp1
communicator-base-406
communicator-base-407
communicator-base-45

By my crude count there are over 300 packages like these in the distribution
that have to mangle their names to differentiate versions.

-- 
see shy jo


Reply to: