On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 11:40:15AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 08:54:38AM +0200, Florian Weps wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 07:24:44AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > the shared object name already is different. why change the "basename"
> > > as well?
> >
> > Because I am afraid the package for 3.1 would still be called "libstdc++3"
> > if we just used the SONAME version for naming, due to questionable
> > use of the SONAME version - it follows the release numbers, a practice
> > criticised by Junichi in his libpkg guide.
>
> Have you looked at the package already in the archive? The SONAME is
> libstdc++.so.4, and the package is called libstdc++4.
My fears are subsiding. Thanks also to Matthias for comforting me
in private mail. I was horribly wrong.
So would it be enough to add a distinguishing reference to libc++'s
SONAME version to the "basename" of C++ libraries?
For example, libfoo-1.2.3.so.0 (package name libfoo-1.2.3-0) linked
against libstdc++.so.4 would be called libfoo-1.2.3+4.so.0 (package
name libfoo-1.2.3+4-0).
Would this break things like dh_makeshlibs?
How do the other distributions handle this? Would it be worthwile to try
to achieve binary compatibility with them over C++ libraries?
Florian
--
Ben> I don't think anybody has done a Intercal machine yet, since Intercal is
Ben> not exactly the #1 langauge to program in.
Paul> Intel has one, but few seem to want to buy it for some odd reason.
-- Ben Franchuk and Paul Repacholi in comp.sys.dec (2002)
Attachment:
pgpbZMuYORagQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature