Re: libusb...

["Adam Majer" <adamm@galacticasoftware.com>]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 11:52:56PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> "Adam Majer" <adamm@galacticasoftware.com> cum veritate scripsit:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 02:39:23PM -0500, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
> > > Perhaps I missed something along the way, but why has the libusb
> > > package moved from the nominally-standard libusb0 naming to this
> > > libusb-0.1-4 name?  This would seem to be in violation of policy
> > > section 11.3.
> 
> > Probably because upstream doesn't follow proper versioning.
> > I maintain stuff that is not binary compatible b/w minor 
> > releases like 1.4 -> 1.5.
> 
> That's probably a real problem.
> 
> libusb is:
> 
> libusb-0.1.so.4
> 
> I don't know what the guy tries to mean here, but it is probably
> a library under the name of "libusb-0.1"
> With a soversion of 4

Yeah, IMO that soname is screwed up. It should be libusb.so.1.4 or whatever.
At least <libname>.so.<version> with version to whatever degree necessary to 
keep ABI complience between different releases/uploads of the library.

- Adam