On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:39:14PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote : > Le mardi 05 juillet 2005 ? 16:34 +0200, Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester a > ?crit : > > > 1. It's linking with openssl, and claiming to be LGPL, which > > > I understand to be incompatible. > > > > I assume that linking with libcrypto.so and not libssl.so does not > > change the problem? > > I'll talk to upstream about that, and see if he could add an exception > > for linking with openssl, as said in the openssl faq. > > There is no need for an exception for LGPL software. > > > What I don't understand is that "objdump -p /usr/lib/libssh.so.0 | grep > > SONAME" returns 'libssh.so.0'. Doesn't this mean its SONAME is > > 'libssh.so.0'? If it does, where is the problem? > > I set the shared library version to 0.0.0 since it's the first debian > > package release. > > I was planning to version next release 1.0.0, since interfaces will be > > removed and since it will break backward compatibility, independantly > > of the version number upstream will give to his release. Is this wrong? > > It is wrong, because upstream can decide at some point in the future > that the ABI is stable, and then start to call it libssh.so.0 or > libssh.so.1. It is much safer to use libtool' -release flag, so that it > is called libssh-$VERSION.so.0. To achieve that, just use something like > this in Makefile.am: > > UP_VERSION=$(something that returns 0.11, the current version) > libssh_la_LDFLAGS = -release $(UP_VERSION) > I see your point. I tried to fix that. Hope I didn't do it wrong (again). If someone could check... Should the package name contain the version number? (like the libssl packages) Thanks for your help. Regards, -- Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature