[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: advice on package

joost@rulcmc.leidenuniv.nl (joost witteveen)  wrote on 14.05.96 in <m0uJJ80-00013mC@rulcmc.leidenuniv.nl>:

> > The conventional approach is to encode the major number of the shared
> > library into the package name.
> But if I'm correct, this isn't good enough for this case, as
> slrn really depends on a specific minor version number of slang
> (I know, not good, but the way it was with my version of slrn anyway).

Well, as I understand it, the conventional approach seems to be (to expand  
slightly) to encode that part of the shared lib version in the package  
name that characterizes compatible interfaces.

It's really the same rule as for the soname of the library (because it  
really solves the same problem) - both should change if the interface  
changes in an incompatible way.

Now, the extreme case of the soname having the complete version number is  
ugly. However, if it turns out to be technically correct ...

MfG Kai

Reply to: