Hi, On Jun 4, 2007, at 3:50 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Remi Mommsen wrote: > >> Hi Dan, >> >> On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:18 PM, Daniel Macks wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 10:25:32AM -0500, Remi Mommsen wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Given that we have now gcc42 in 10.4/unstable (and soon also in >>>> 10.4/ >>>> stable), I wonder if we should declare the gcc4 package as >>>> obsolete. >>>> >>>> The gcc4 package in 10.4/unstable is based on the pre-4.2 snapshot >>>> 4.1.9999-20060617. In the 10.4/stable tree, gcc4 is based on 4.0.2. >>>> >>>> The only package depending on gcc4 is pdftk in 10.4/unstable >>>> (maintainer cc'd). >>>> >>>> There seems to be no package in 10.4/stable requiring gcc4. >>>> Therefore, I'd propose to remove gcc4 from the 10.4/stable tree >>>> once >>>> we add gcc42, and declare the gcc4 package in 10.4/unstable as >>>> obsolete. >>> >>> We haven't yet seriously addressed obsoleting packages that have >>> -shlibs splitoffs. I suspect only the "gcc4" package (or whatever >>> the >>> compiler + headers is called) is technically obsolete and able to be >>> discarded by end-users during an upgrade. The gcc4-shlibs component, >>> if someone has indeed already compiled something against gcc4 and >>> therefore hard-coded the dcc4-shlibs .dylib, that -shlibs package is >>> *not* obsolete and replaceable by whatever the new one is. >>> >>> Actually, in keeping with the way we do other shared-library >>> upgrades, >>> could actually nuke gcc4 entirely (keeping only the -shlibs >>> part), but >>> it's sometimes difficult to adjust the .info for that...so yeah, >>> just >>> marking it obsolete sounds like an easy and good plan. >>> >>> dan >> >> Couldn't one assume that if there is no package declaring a >> dependency on the -shlibs package, that it is save to remove the >> entire package, i.e. including the -shlibs part? > > I guess one question is: has there ever been a package declaring a > dependency on the -shlibs part? I don't see why this matters. Assuming there has been a package bar declaring a dependency on foo-shlibs. When the bar package was built, a foo-shlibs deb file was created (or it already existed). Later, the original package bar was updated depending now on foo2-shlibs. If a user has still the old bar package installed, it should also have the foo-shlibs deb still installed. Once the bar package is updated, nobody cares anymore if the foo-shlibs can still be built or not. Remi -- Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months. (Oscar Wilde) ********************************************************************* Remigius K. Mommsen e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Manchester URL: http://cern.ch/mommsen Fermilab, MS 357 voice: ++1 (630) 840-8321 P.O. Box 500 fax: ++1 (630) 840-2649 Batavia, Il 60510, US home: ++1 (630) 236-0932 ********************************************************************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
