Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <3B28FF48.99EAAC1C@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:15:36 -0400
From: "Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ralf Habacker <Ralf DOT Habacker AT saght DOT tessag DOT com>
CC: Cygwin-Apps <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>,
        Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>,
        Suhaib Siddiqi <ssiddiqi AT inspirepharm DOT com>,
        Alan Hourihane <alanh AT fairlite DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
Subject: Re: AW: ask for delivering cygwin 1.1.8 with kde 1.1.2
References: <005701c0f49f$ea4bfdc0$6e032bb7 AT BRAMSCHE>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ralf Habacker wrote:
> >
> But what about when kde for example is installed and uses jpeglib6b and the
> user updates
> to jpeglib6c, then kde will not run. :[

I think we're slowly converging on a system in which:
  when a library is updated so that the new dll is not backwards
compatible (that is, the DLL name changes to represent an ABI/API
incompatibility), then we try to insure continued operation for a
reasonable time.  "reasonable" is open to interpretation.

There are two ways to do this:

1) the new package contains the headers, import libs, DLL's and static
libs for the NEW library, AND contains the old DLL's.  This is what we
chose to do with readline.

2) or the incompatible library is released with a different package
name.  However, since in all likelihood, the new package will contain
files that conflict with the old package, the old package should be
simultaneously updated to a new *version*, that contains only the DLL's
-- since the names are different, those won't conflict with the DLL's in
the new package.

In effect, both options are the same.  1) is simpler, and easier for us
volunteer maintainers.  2) makes it optional whether the use wants to
download a bunch of (useless?) old dll's, and is more in line with the
way most linux distributions handle it.

--Chuck