Steve Morris wrote:
>
>
> Anssi Hannula wrote:
>> Steve Morris wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Griffin wrote:
>>>  
>>>> Apps which don't, can't, or won't upgrade from one major library
>>>> version to the next are not uncommon in Linux. The apps are owned by
>>>> their creators, and the fact that the library author decides to
>>>> incompatibly upgrade the library imposes no requirement on them to
>>>> conform. That's why Linux is designed to allow multiple versions of
>>>> libraries to be be installed side-by-side, and provides for mechanisms
>>>> so that the same system can satisfy the libXXX.so.1 requirement and
>>>> the libXXX.so.2 requirement simultaneously.    
>>> I have no issue with this, but it is my understanding from reading past
>>> threads, that the Mandriva Mirrors are snapshots containing only the
>>> latest versions of packages because that is Mandrivas policy.
>>>  
>>
>> We only provide older versions when they are still needed by something.
>>
>>
>>> Having
>>> libXXX.so.1 and libXXX.so.2 coexisting is great, and libXXX.so should
>>> always be pointing at the latest version, and software that is not
>>> version specific should have a runtime dependency on the libXXX.so file.
>>>  
>>
>> But the software cannot know whether the dependency is version-specific.
>>  
> Correct, but the author does. It is the author who is making the
> decision about whether the dependency needs to be version specific or
> not based on how the software was written.

Nope, even the author cannot know how libXXX.so may change in future
releases.

>> The release of libXXX.so.3 could completely change the interface and the
>> application would no longer work.
>>  
> This applies to everything, and while true, this is why you have
> software maintainers, change documentation, testing strategies and
> release cycles.

Why bother, since the versioned SONAMEs are just for this purpose, e.g.
to prevent applications using the new library when some interfaces have
been removed.



--
Anssi Hannula