Re: Newer versions of libpng.
'Philippe Troin wrote:'
>On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:39:30 EDT Chris Fearnley (email@example.com)
>> 'Philippe Troin wrote:'
>> >But... 0.89c has a soname of 1, and a library name of 1.0.89c. Which
>> >will be inconsistent with the upcoming release of libpng 1.0 (pretty
>> >As there are binary incompatibilities between 0.89c and 0.95a
>> >(programs dynamically linked with libpng 0.89c won't work with 0.95a,
>> >they'll crash), I'd like to bump down the library version to 0.95a
>> >with a soname of 0.
>> Yes, don't break other packages. Make the soname 0.95a if you must,
>> but don't break other packages. See the slang package for the
>> approach we've evolved on this issue.
>Re-read the initial message. Packages *will* break whatever packaging solutions I take because of *binary* *incompatibilities* between the two versions of libpng.
>What I'll do anyways is to rename the libpng1 package with libpng0 (as the version number suggests), and the packages libpng1 and libpng0 will be able to coexist, and as the sonames are different everything will be fine.
>Libpng0-dev and libpng1-dev will conflict.
>This looks like an acceptable solution.
Yes, so long as the package name and soname follow Debian standards you
won't break anything (until the upstream upgrade that conflicts with
the old stuff - but that hasn't happened yet, so isn't yet a concern I
think). I was merely complaining about breaking things with the
current package. It seems that if you release the new package with
soname 0, and the other packages rebuild against it, there will be
fewer problems when soname 1 is released.
Christopher J. Fearnley | Linux/Internet Consulting
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com | Design Science Revolutionary
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf | Explorer in Universe
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf | "Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .