I contacted Galen on this one. I don't normally quote private mail on the list but I am confident that he will approve and this will save him from having to do it again.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 14 11:10:21 1997 Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 23:47:40 -0700 From: Galen Hazelwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Lindsay Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: libbfd questions Lindsay Allen wrote: > Hello Galen, > > I am confused by the existance of two versions of libbfd. > libbfd2.8.1.0.15_2.8.1.0.15-1.deb > libbfd2.8.1_2.8.1-2.deb > > Are they both to be installed? They do not conflict. I have libbfd2.8.1 > installed at the moment and dselect does not want me to remove it even > when I select the new version for installation. These packages are the "same" shared library, but with different sonames. When a linux binary is executed, ld.so looks for the library with the soname encoded into the program. It's usually something like "libfoobar.so.3.1". The version number is part of the name, and therefore libraries with different version numbers aren't interchangeable. libbfd is only used by the binutils package. Whichever one binutils depends on, have it installed. The next release of binutils will include an integrated libbfd, and the libbfd packages will vanish. The only reason the older one was still there was that I didn't get around to asking for it to be removed... --Galen =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lindsay Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perth, Western Australia voice +61 8 9316 2486 32.0125S 115.8445E vk6lj Debian Unix =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Robert D. Hilliard wrote: > Hamm includes both libbfd2.8.1_2.8.1-2.deb and > libbfd2.8.1.0.15_2.8.1.0.15-1.deb. Neither indicates and replaces or > conflicts. Are these two versions of the same package, or are they > independent? > > Bob -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .