On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 01:36:10PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote: > Of course the standard way to handle these issues would be to change > pacakage name every time source or binary compatibility changes, > however, since I don't consider the interface to be very stable yet, I > risk flooding the archive with lots of libtagcoll1.x packages and not > being able to track all of them anymore (taking care of the development > itself is already complicated enough, as you might imagine). > > Is there some more restrictive versioning and dependancy scheme I could > use? I tried setting shlibs so that packages would depend on =version > instead of >=version, but that seems to be a bit too restrictive. No. For pre-production libraries that do not yet have stable ABIs, there are two sane options: a) Do not upload shared libraries (static only) b) Do not upload any libraries If you can't look after your ABI, don't publish one. If you publish one, there is no way to duck all that comes with it. We're better off with no ABI than with an unstable one. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature