Hi David, On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 01:14:13PM +0100, David Paleino wrote: > This is due to the fact that in Makefile.am upstream (CCed) has set: > > libvista_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 2:2:0 > > As already discussed in the thread at [1], the numbers get reversed in the > file name, so that 2:2:0 becomes 2.0.2. Now the problem is that the third > number must be <= the middle one. This means that we can't have a 2:1:2 (so that > the filename becomes libfoo.so.2.2.1). > > Is there any solution to this? If not, is it that important that the filename > has the same version number as the package? The version given to -version-info defines the SONAME of the package which usually does not match the package version. See the Debian Library Packaging Guide ([1]) for details. In short: your situation sounds like it's basically fine - just check that the SONAME version number is handled correctly by upstream. HTH, Sebastian [1] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html -- Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/ Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature