Re: .deb dependancy hell
From: Colin Watson (cjwatson_at_debian.org)
Date: 01/29/04
- Previous message: Colin Watson: "Re: Debian list = spam and virus repeater/multiplexer"
- In reply to: Richard Hoskins: "Re: .deb dependancy hell"
- Next in thread: Gregory Seidman: "Re: .deb dependancy hell"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:35:08 +0000 To: DebianUser List <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:32:53PM -0500, Richard Hoskins wrote:
> If package A needs package B, and package B needs package A, why in
> the world are they two separate packages?
Separate libraries frequently need to be in separate packages, because
all hell breaks loose otherwise if the soname of library A changes while
the soname of library B stays the same.
-- Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
- Previous message: Colin Watson: "Re: Debian list = spam and virus repeater/multiplexer"
- In reply to: Richard Hoskins: "Re: .deb dependancy hell"
- Next in thread: Gregory Seidman: "Re: .deb dependancy hell"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|