On 08/12/2010 02:46 AM, Jan-Pascal van Best wrote: > On Thu, August 12, 2010 11:26, Niels Thykier wrote: >> The reason is that if the library is in /usr/share/java it would be >> considered a public library (just as C libraries in /usr/lib) and >> therefore it would need to be in a library package to declare its ABI >> version[1]. You cannot do that with a program package (unless you start >> adding ABI versions to the program package name which would probably be >> "less than optimal solution"). > > Ah yes, I didn't realise you were explicitly speaking of /programs/ and > not of /libraries/. Hi Niels, Jan-Pascal: This is a good observation, although I think the issue may be limited to packages where the library is generally useful *and* is a program (antlr comes to mind). For a program-only package, the name of the wrapper script will be the name known to the user, so perhaps the package naming requirement can be relaxed, but I'm not sure it matters. That is, the ABI version could appear in the package, but the package could Provide: the unversioned name - i.e. the one known to the user. If multiple versions of combo package/library packages (again, antlr) may be installed at once, the command/program part is up to the maintainer, and the package name must declare the ABI version. Or perhaps I'm missing something in the discussion... Regards, tony
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature