Re: Problem with control file for SLANG and/or MUTT
On Mar 3, Chris Fearnley wrote
> 'John Goerzen wrote:'
> >Why is there a package named slang0.99.34 with a version of 0.99.37? This
> >is *NOT* good!
>
> It's not "bad" either. BTW, what do you mean by this "good/bad" thing
> anyway.
>
> The upstream author hasn't chosen to use the "standard" naming
> conventions for shared libs (when I get another chance I intend to
> lobby him again). So my workaround is to keep the soname of
> compatible libraries identical and let the version indicate versions.
> Sounds simple now that I say it. If there are any real problems let
> me know. I'm working on slang0.99.34-0.99.38 and would like to keep
> everyone happy if possible.
>
> Does anyone know what slackware and Red Hat are using for the soname
> for slang? Probably I should add these compatibility symlinks:
RedHat uses an soname of libslang.so.0, which is what the upstream
source is configured to use. For some reason (historical?) the Debian
diff overrides this and uses an soname of libslang.0.99.34. We should
change this ASAP.
Until all of the packages which use slang can be rebuilt, the slang
package should use the following arrangement:
/usr/lib/libslang.so.0.99.37 (with soname of libslang.so.0)
/usr/lib/libslang.so.0 -> libslang.so.0.99.37
/usr/lib/libslang.so.0.99.34 -> libslang.so.0 (for compatibilty)
David
--
David Engel ODS Networks
david@sw.ods.com 1001 E. Arapaho Road
(972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081
Reply to: