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

Re: RFC: libprojectM, new upstream version.

Il giorno mer, 16/07/2008 alle 17.46 -0500, William Pitcock ha scritto:
> Hi,
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 22:59 +0200, Francesco Namuri wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I've packaged the new version of this library, the upstream author has
> > changed the SONAME, and so I've changed the name of the lib and -data
> > package, not changed the name of the -dev file because the old
> > maintainer has chosen to not version the package.
> > 
> > This is my first library package, and I've some doubts, is for this that
> > I'm asking for RFC...
> > 
> > Is it correct to replace the old library? This can cause some breakage
> > with old linked binaries (if any, I've seen that no package depends on
> > this library)...
> audacious-plugins
> libvisual-projectm
> You will have to at least update audacious-plugins to work before doing
> this.

but about the name of the binary library package, is much correct to add
the SONAME in the name of the package libprojectm2_1.2.0-1_i386.deb that
replaces libprojectm1_1.01.0-1_i386.deb for example? or, considering
that it is a small library a generic libprojectm_1.2.0-1_i386.deb?

and to avoid breakage with audacious-plugins without updating
audacious-plugins itself, can I, hypothetically, make libprojectm2 to be
installable with libprojectm1?
> > about the change of SONAME by the upstream author, is it correct to
> > change the SONAME if the library is compatible with the old one?
> The library isn't compatible. Upstream breaks the API with every
> release, so I gave up on them.

Best Regards,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Questa =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente

Reply to: