Re: [RFC] Renaming libnet-1.1.1 to libnet2-1.1.1

On 2003-03-06 at 09:54:38-0800 Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com> wrote:

> > Red Hat, Debian, and most other major distros have been through

No, they don't. Sleepycat distributes Berkeley DB that way; Red Hat et. al. are simply following Sleepycat's lead.

> If they had followed your logic, every time they introduced a new

s/they/Sleepycat

But this brings up an interesting point: I don't think we're arguing about the same thing.

If you want to petition the authors of libnet (Mike et. al.) to kill the libnet-1.1 tree and re-release it as libnet2-2.0, then that's fine. I see nothing wrong with making the argument that the extent of API changes in libnet-1.1 means that it will take a long time for it to be adopted, and that the 1.0 and [what is currently called] 1.1 trees will need to co-exist easily for some time. As you pointed out, there is certainly precedence for this.

Do you need help?

In addition to our free technical library, Pantek provides professional IT services to companies who utilize Open Source software: Learn more about Pantek's Technical Support offerings Place an order for 24/7/365 Technical Support here Learn more about Pantek, who we are, and what we do Chat with a Live Operator Related securityfocus.com Links bugtraq certification focus-bsd focus-ids focus-ih focus-linux focus-ms focus-sun focus-unix-other focus-virus forensics incidents libnet linux-secnews ms-secnews pen-test secpapers secprog sectools secureshell security-basics securityjobs sf-news vuln-dev webappsec Request more information about Pantek

What I *am* arguing is that the decision to rename libnet-1.1 to libnet-2.0 isn't yours (as a packager) to make. The authors have created the situation where libnet-1.0 and libnet-1.1 cannot coexist on the same system. If you need to modify one of the packages (to make them coexist), you should modify the deprecated package (libnet-1.0), not the preferred package (libnet-1.1). You might think that is unwise, but that is clearly what the authors intend, and you (as a packager) shouldn't subvert the authors' intentions.

-- 
James Ralston, Information Technology
Software Engineering Institute
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: libnet-unsubscribe@securityfocus.com
For additional commands, e-mail: libnet-help@securityfocus.com