On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 01:32:02PM -0400, David Z Maze wrote: > Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes: > > On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 01:45:30PM -0400, David Z Maze wrote: > >> (a) Repackaging lm-sensors 2.6.5, which would just have libsensors1 > >> 1:2.6.5-1, which in turn would Conflict: with any packages that > >> have compiled against libsensors1 2.7.0 (AFAIK, just one). > > > >> (b) Changing the soname of libsensors.so to libsensors.so.1.debian.1 > >> in lm-sensors 2.7.0, and changing the name of the library package > >> to libsensors-1debian1, and changing the shlibs file > >> appropriately. > > > >> (c) Checking that the user-kernel interface hasn't changed; that is, > >> that the 2.6.5 library works vs. 2.7.0 modules, and vice versa. > > > >> Is this a reasonable course of action? The soname feels a little ugly > >> to me, but otherwise, assuming (c), it does feel like about the right > >> thing to do. > > > > You're talking about doing all of the above? If you do (b) and (c), why > > do you still need to do (a)? (I.e., why would you maintain two versions > > of the library in unstable simultaneously?) > > > > Doing (b) and (c) seems reasonable, at least. But if you don't have > > kernel interface issues from (c), I don't see why you would want (a). > I'd like packages that haven't recompiled vs. libsensors-1debian1 to > still work. (a) would mean providing the old libsensors1 with the old > ABI, which would enable this. (If (c) works and I do (b) but not (a), > then the lm-sensors source package now provides libsensors-dev and > libsensors-1debian1, and nothing provides libsensors1.) So you intend to maintain two versions of this library for the duration of a stable release cycle? That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Otherwise, this is a standard library soname migration, and the sooner other packages stop depending on the older lib, the better, IMHO. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpobV6hmW1Ys.pgp
Description: PGP signature