RFC: Soname in rpm name

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 12:34:27AM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 22:55 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:22:13PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > > I sort of agree, but shipping such packages should be done only if
> > > absolutely necessary in FC/FE.  Carrying backwards compatibility baggage
> > > is not something that aligns well with the project's objectives IMO.
> > 
> > But on the contrary it is not directed compatibility, but rather a
> > unilateral, you have a scheme for both forward and backward
> > compatibility packages, so that third parties (as well as Red Hat as a
> > vendor itslef) can easily move forward to the next bleeding edge
> > softwrae release.
> 
> Well, I guess it can be seen in many ways.  Note that I don't object to
> a common consistent naming scheme at all, on the contrary.
> 
> My concern is that such a scheme _when applied as a standard procedure
> for all library packages_ would probably lower the barrier for including
> backwards compatibility cruft for which there will probably no
> interested parties to clean it up nor maintain.

There's no need to, these packages can be easily marked (see my other
replies in this thread) and removed even in cron-jobs.

> And once something is in, it's always hard to drop it; there will
> always be someone yelling "don't remove fooX.Y.Z, I need it for my
> ancient baz package".  I don't think that stuff belongs in Fedora.

I don't want any backward compatibility _content_ in Fedora, but a
proper forward/backward combatibility _mechanism_. Fedora Core
(rawhide) should continue its aggressive schedule, it only allows for
flexibility when needed.

It even allows to skip concerning about creating compatibility libs
for selected bits of Fedora Core N-1 and N-2 for Fedora Core N, since
the libs from the previous releases can effectively simply be copied
over with no renames to compat-this and compat-that, and most
importantly no new QA, you know they worked for any ISV.

So I guess we are on the same side ;)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20050124/c5426dd5/attachment.sig>