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

Re: Library version in name vs. so version

On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 03:22:45PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
> adopting the jasper JPEG 2000 library[1] in Debian, I'm struggling with
> the upstream convention of incorporating the package version into the
> library name. I.e., the shared library is created as
> /usr/lib/libjasper-1.701.so.1.0.0
> for jasper-1.701.0. Following Policy chapter 8, the respective binary
> package names would be:
> libjasper-1.701-1
> libjasper-1.701-dev
> This implies that on every upstream update, the binary package name
> would need to be changed.

That's correct, this is the appropriate way to package libraries
versioned in this manner.

The only way it could change is if upstream adopted a different method
of versioning the library. This is an essentially unrelated issue; the
behaviour you see with the packages is a reflection of the upstream

> -> Besides, the -dev package includes include files in
> /usr/include/jasper/ (e.g. /usr/include/jasper/jasper.h) which causes
> the respective -dev packages of different upstream versions to conflict
> anyway. Would I have to provide a virtual package (e.g. libjasper-dev)
> to conflict with?

This would work. The other way is to name the package libjasper-dev,
but that tends to be more work for less convinience.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: