Re: strict shlibs relations (Re: Accepted plib1.5 1.5.0-3 (i386 source)) (was: Bug#144668: plib1.5: shlibs are overly restrictive)
Philipp Frauenfelder <philipp.frauenfelder@swissonline.ch> cum veritate scripsit:
> The other thing is: if I would package 1.5.0, 1.5.1 and so on in
> seperate packages, it would be nice of me to provide some sort
> of upgrade path. Ie. a conflicts, replaces sort of thing.
> Otherwise, some user would not note that a new version of the
> package is around. If I do that, we are in the same problem
> again, aren't we?
-release flag for libtool is exacly for that isn't it ?
So that libplib-1.5.1.so.whatever and
libplib-1.5.0.so.whatever will coexist, belonging in
libplib-1.5.0-whatever and libplib-1.5.1-whatever package.
> I don't really see the need. But if you are worried to much, I
> could try to get the unstable version out of woody. The only
> package which currently depends on plib1.5 is tux-aqfh. I tried
> to compile it with the stable release of plib and it worked fine
> on my machine.
I think it's not doing very well, I'd rather have it
not distributed with woody in the current state.
My "shared library packaging guide" is available,
you might want to comment on it.
In my reading right now, it might be lacking some comments on
C++ shared libraries, and use of -release flag for libtool.
I believe it is important that "best practice" for libraries packaging
be established, so that the quality of Debian as a whole may
improve.
regards,
junichi
--
dancer@debian.org : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: