Re: Bug#83419: where are libssl09 and libssl095a?
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 09:08:39AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Packages have to be manually modified to build-depend on libssl096-dev
> (if, in contrast, the -dev package was named libssl-dev, then packages
> would only have to be rebuilt, not modified too).
Actually, the soname is libcrytpo.so.0.9.6 and not just libcrypto.so.0.
Although I don't like upstream's numbering convention, the fact that the
interface to the library has changed between 0.9.5a and 0.9.6 means that the
package should be named libssl096-dev (or libssl0.9.6-dev, preferably) and not
For example, libxml.so.1 comes from libxml1 and libxml.so.2 comes from libxml2.
Thus, libcrypto.so.0.9.6 should come from a package named libwhatever0.9.6.
It really is upstream's numbering convention that is causing us (or, at least,
me) all this confusion. For example, if they release 0.9.7 and it *only*
contains bug fixes but no interface changes, should the soname change? No, it
shouldn't. But with their convention (and with how they have structured their
build system), it will.
In other words, they can't increment the revision number of their software
without incrementing the soname, which is dumb. The soname *only* needs to
be incremented when the library's interface has changed. It is for this
reason that most people use only the MAJOR number in the soname.
If they were to follow this convention, we would be up to libssl3 by now,
I think (09 --> 1, 095a --> 2, 096 --> 3).
[dpkg] We are the apt. Resistance is futile. You will be packaged.