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