Re: Libraries getting out of phase with other distributions

[Douglas Bates <bates@stat.wisc.edu>]

Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes:

> This is strange; there seems to be disagreement about what version
> the upstream source is!
> 
> On Wed, Jan 21, 1998 at 02:02:00PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > From: Erik Troan <ewt@redhat.com>
> 
> > On 13 Jan 1998, Peter Dalgaard BSA wrote:
> > > Douglas Bates <bates@stat.wisc.edu> writes:
> > > > the two distributions.  Guy goes with the 2.1 number because that's
> > > > the number the authors give it and it is upwardly compatible with the
> > > > 2.0 release.  The RedHat maintainer claims it is a major revision
> > > > relative to 2.0 so should have a new major number.
> > > 
> > > Well to be completely precise, Eric Troan (RedHat)'s point is that the
> > > *original* maintainer (Chet Ramey) has set the shared object number at
> > > 3.0, and that that should be respected. To wit:
> 
> Douglas said that the authors gave it version 2.1, while Eric
> claims the "*original* maintainer" (is this different to Douglas's
> authors?) gave it 3.0.

I fully prepared to believe that I have it backwards and the original
sources numbered it 3.0.  All I know is that Debian has a
/lib/libreadline.so.2.1 and RedHat has a /lib/libreadline.so.3.0 and
I am told they are the same library.

I went to check the sources but I couldn't find a source package for
any libreadline libraries.  The sources must be in another source
package (libc6, maybe?).

Guy Maor and Eric Troan should be able to give definitive answers on
the numbering.  I'm just a bystander, as it were.  I tried to create a
RedHat RPM package from a Debian package using "alien --to-rpm" and
found that it wouldn't install under RedHat 5.0 because of the library
mismatch.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .