Re: SONAME best practice
Andy Hawkins <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:10:29PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> I think the previous pattern is not so helpful and we can also look at
>> it in a slightly different perspective, consistency with the pattern
>> used by other libs
> I'm not sure you can use all other libraries as an example. A good
> analogy might be with libdb, which (it would appear) there are several
> packages for the different versions in Debian.
Berkeley DB uses a completely different SONAME versioning system that
doesn't have a version number after the *.so part. You should not follow
its example. That versioning strategy, while possible, is much less usual
and is intended for packages where the SONAME is closely tied to the
release version of the package.
You can maintain multiple versions of a shared library in Debian with
either SONAME versioning system. The key requirement of coinstallability
of multiple versions of the library is that the library MUST use symbol
versioning properly so that the libraries can coexist in memory without
tromping on each other.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>