RFC: Soname in rpm name

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:33:24 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:


> >>>Jeff Johnson wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>>>Try with rpm -i.
> >>>>   
> >>>>
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>>Yeah OK. How about something that would be understood by depsolvers then ?
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Depsolvers (at least correctly written ones) use Provides:, not Name:, 
> >>for choosing
> >>what packages to install.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >We need to support what we do have right now. And neither Yum nor
> >"rpm -Uvh" would _not_ upgrade package libfoo to a newer libfoo.
> >
> 
>  From multiply installed rpm -i? Sure, no application gets that right.

No. The scenario is like this:

  Installed is: libfoo-0.9-3 (which provides libfoo.so.0)

  Packager releases: libfoo-1.0-1 (which provides libfoo.so.1)

Then "rpm -ivh libfoo-1.0-1.i386.rpm" works just fine and installs the
new library package in parallel, provided that no file conflicts
between libfoo-0.9-3 and libfoo-1.0-1 exist. On the contrary, "rpm
-Uvh libfoo-1.0-1.i386.rpm" and "yum -y update" would get rid of the
old libfoo, running into broken dependencies if other installed
packages still require the libfoo.so.0 soname.

> >It's not different from what we've done in fedora.us packages.
> >Include parts of the soname version in the package name to make
> >multiple library versions coexist nicely, i.e. also during upgrades.
> >Package resolvers pick the right package based on automatic
> >Provides/Requires.
> >  
> >
> 
> So put sonames into package names if that floats your fedora.us boat. 
> Sooner or later you
> will run into kernel file system imposed limits on package file names. 
> <shrug>

<sigh>