Re: Library sonames and unstable libraries
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:32:49 +0000, Dominic Hargreaves <email@example.com> said:
> Actually I could use an soname of libmapnik.so.0d for now (idea from
> Josselin Mouette's talk that I recently watched the video of :) which
> I can increment to my heart's content until upstream makes a release
> with an soname. As I understand it moving from libmapnik.so.0d
> (package name libmapnik0d) or for that matter libmapnik.so.1d to a
> future official libmapnik.so.0 shouldn't be a problem should it - the
> ordering of sonames doesn't matter?
Yes, I think that's correct. But although the ordering of sonames
doesn't matter technically, it does matter from a human standpoint. It
may be confusing for someone to find out that, say, libmapnik.so.5d is
older than libmapnik.so.0. So you may want to call your sonames
something like .0.0.d, and just bump the minor revision number (so you
always keep the initial 0).
Or maybe you want to use an soname like .0.debian (instead of just
.0.d), to make it more explicitly clear that it's a Debian name.
Anyways, one reason that I would suggest not to do that is because every
time you bump the soname, you also need a new binary package name, which
means that the package will have to sit in the NEW queue for
who-knows-how-long. But that's just my opinion, and if you are willing
to put up with that, that's up to you.
Hubert Chan <firstname.lastname@example.org> -- Jabber: email@example.com
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA http://www.uhoreg.ca/
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA