[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Shared library naming and dashes

[I am not subscribed to debian-gtk-gnome.]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 12:18:36PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> There's been some discussion at the #gnome-debian channel about
> package naming for some shared libraries. Specifically, people
> were discussing if libgnome-keyring, which has the following
> library should be named: /usr/lib/libgnome-keyring.so.0.0.0.
> The package was named libgnome-keyring-0, afaik.

I would have called the binary package libgnome-keyring0.

> There are some other inconsistencies, also, it seems, like these:
> [kov]@[beterraba] $ dpkg -S /usr/lib/libgnomeui-2.so.0
> libgnomeui-0: /usr/lib/libgnomeui-2.so.0

I would have called this binary package libgnomeui-2-0.

> [kov]@[beterraba] $ dpkg -S /usr/lib/libgnome-2.so.0
> libgnome2-0: /usr/lib/libgnome-2.so.0

I would have called this binary package libgnome-2-0.

I find the "-2" part disgusting, but it's a disgustingness that is
forced upon you by upstream.

> Policy states:
> "The run-time shared library needs to be placed in a package called
>  librarynamesoversion, where soversion is the version number in the
>  soname of the shared library[37]. Alternatively, if it would be
>  confusing to directly append soversion to libraryname (e.g. because
>  libraryname itself ends in a number), you may use libraryname-soversion
>  and libraryname-soversion-dev instead."
> My reading of that makes me think that the package names
> should be libgnomeui-2-0 and libgnome-2-0 respectively.


> I've named devhelp0.8.1's library package following this
> naming: libdevhelp-1-0, because the library file is:
> /usr/lib/libdevhelp-1.so.0.

Yes, that's correct, as I understand it.

> So, the dash should exist or not? I think it is important for consistency
> and we can fix this for gnome2.6, maybe, so we do not impose one
> more delay probability for sarge.

When I split the X library packages for XFree86 4.3.0 I followed the
policy manual precisely, as I understood it.

The only one that ended up with a weird-looking name was libX11.so.6's
package, which I called libx11-6.

I hope this was of some assistance.  You're on the right track AFAICT.

G. Branden Robinson                |     One man's "magic" is another man's
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     engineering.  "Supernatural" is a
branden@debian.org                 |     null word.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- Robert Heinlein

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: