3 ms·
Sure, which is why we have `libopenssl0.9.8`, `libopenssl1.0.0`, etc. In Debian at least, the policy is that package names for libraries should include somethin
by lwf 10y ago
Sure, which is why we have `libopenssl0.9.8`, `libopenssl1.0.0`, etc. In Debian at least, the policy is that package names for libraries should include something approximating the SONAME to allow for exactly this.
Eventually you drop the old one, because you can no longer provide security support or for some other reason. But if there are compelling reasons otherwise, distributions can and do provide multiple ABIs for the same library.
- digi_owl 10y agoAnd that just exasperates the problem.
- Pxtl 10y agoAt the very least shoulnd't they be providing and supporting multiple major versions on the same system? Major versions are, by definition, for breaking/incompatible changes, so having them being mutually exclusive creates impossible situations doesn't it?
- digi_owl 10y agoWell yes, but using the package name to distinguish them makes it harder for third parties to do packages. This is the complaint that has lead to the development of container based formats in the first place. Thing is that with sonames the actual files are distinguished anyways, so mangling the package names to get around collisions are just an artifact of an overly rigid package manager.