Re: Upcoming libgd2-{xpm,noxpm}-dev -> libgd2-dev transition
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 22:34:36 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> Two things has happened with GD Library:
>>
>> 1. I have dropped the {xpm,noxpm} dichotomy and there's only
>> libgd2-dev now. There are transitional packages which are ment
>> to help with the move to libgd2-dev, so you don't have to make
>> any changes right now - the binNMUs should work.
>
> Might I suggest libgd-dev instead? If a later API revision makes lots
> of other packages FTBFS, a new versioned libgdN-dev package can always
> be introduced; otherwise unversioned ones in case of say just ABI bumps
> are more correct and cause less painful transitions.
The upstream position is that MAJOR release will break API. (But who
knows if that ever happens). So I think the libgd2-dev actually
reflects the reality pretty well.
I might however add "Provides: libgd-dev" to libgd2-dev package, but
nothing depends on libgd-dev now, so I don't really see a need for it.
>> 2. The upstream, which I accidentaly became part of, has released
>> libgd-2.1.0-alpha1 today. This release has merged most of the code
>> from PHP fork of the library (only some custom antialiasing stuff
>> was not merged). But beware not, the API was kept backwards
>> compatible.
>>
>> The ABI has remained same as well, but I have decided to bump the
>> SONAME to 3, because I have implemented the GCC visibility magick,
>> so only symbols, which were ment to be exposed, are exposed now.
>
> If the SOVERSION is now 3, then the shared library package would need
> to be called libgd3 (and libgd3-dev or as mentioned above ideally
> libgd-dev), or did I misunderstood something in the above?
The '2' in libgd2-dev is from 2.x.x, and not from the SONAME to
reflect the API version (1 vs 2).
I was thinking about renaming the shared package to libgd3, but it
would be quite confusing to have libgd2-dev to go with libgd3.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org>
Reply to: