Installation path changes in -dev package
Dear mentors,
I have a question about handling a change from upstream in a package I
maintain.
The package, scim, provides a plugin/module framework so that other
packages can build and install shared object files separated from the
main package, and scim will load these modules at runtime.
The installation path for these modules are decided at compiling time,
by checking the pkg-config file provided by scim (actually libscim-dev
package in Debian), /usr/lib/pkgconfig/scim.pc, for the $(moduledir)
variable.
Starting from upstream version 1.4.5, this path is changed from
${exec_prefix}/lib/scim-1.0 (/usr/lib/scim-1.0)
to
${exec_prefix}/lib/scim-1.0/1.4.0 (/usr/lib/scim-1.0/1.4.0)
Since scim has always been checking module files from both of these two
places, this change doesn't affect the users. The module packages built
against old scim still works fine with the new scim. However modules
built against the new scim will have their files installed in a
different path.
In Debian, most module packages are already using a patch to install the
module files in /usr/lib/scim-1.0/1.4.0/ instead of /usr/lib/scim-1.0/,
to make the version of the module ABI clear. After this change, such
patch will likely cause files to be installed in
/usr/lib/scim-1.0/1.4.0/1.4.0/, which is bad.
Since this is just a build configuration change and doesn't change any
ABI, I decided to upload the new upstream version, 1.4.6-1, and mailed
to a list (hopefully subscribed by most module package maintainers)
about this change and the procedures to fix the module package [1,2]. I
plan to test build all module package and file bugs if necessary. I
also have a example patch for reference [3] to the other maintainers.
1. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ime-devel/2007-April/000322.html
2. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ime-devel/2007-May/000323.html
3. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=422739
I am asking you if I handled this change properly, if I missed any
procedure, and anything I can do better next time in a similar
situation.
Thanks,
Ming
2007.05.08
Reply to: