Re: gmp-4.0.1 and .so numbers
On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 02:31:37PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > The tarball, gmp-4.0.1.tar.gz produces the libraries libgmp.so.3.2.1 and
> > libmp.so.3.1.3, both with links ....so.3.
> > 3. Call the package libgmp3_4.0.1.
> Well, you need to run objdump -p on those files and check if the SONAME is
> the same as it is in the files in the current libgmp3 packages. If it's the
> same, there's no other choice but to keep the same package name, how ever
> inconsistent it may seem.
Well, of course they are the same ;-)
That wasn't what bothered me as much as the version number that argues for
a new SONAME.
> (It's rather doubtful that they really kept compatibility and bumped the
> major version, but hey...)
But hey... that was what bothered me about the whole thing. The whole
point of naming major releases of the package differently was to provide
two potentially incompatible versions of the library at the same time.
Now, what looks like a simple upgrade may very well break existing
software by not providing a consistant ABI.
The version number screams "I'm significantly different", while the SONAME
says "I'm just like the last 3.X".
Does Policy demand that I keep the SONAME of the upstream even when it
breaks backward compatability?
My typical test of such things is to install the new version and try ssh
to my ISP. If that works then I scp the package to Incoming. This doesn't
really feel like much of a test. Is it sufficient for this question?
Thanks for all the help,
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _-_-_-_-_-_-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _-
_- e-mail: email@example.com Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-
_-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_-
available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/