Hi, * Andreas Henriksson <andreas@fatal.se> [2023-11-04 18:05]:
I've previously suggested that maybe it would be better to set a debian-specific version (0d?), to avoid the theoretical situation that upstream one day ships a different ABI under the 1 so version.Normally, I would agree, but in this particular case, Fedora already went ahead and used SOVERSION 1 [1], so that version is "burned" and we might just as well use it, too.
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lzfse/blob/rawhide/f/60.patch
I would welcome peoples input here on what you think is best from the debian perspective. Obviously we're going to be incompatible with everyone else.I don't think that "incompatible" patch you linked creates much of an issue, because very few (if any) other library consumers will do this rather unusual dlopen() "soft linking" dance (normal linking with e.g. "gcc -llzfse" will automatically use the proper SONAME); besides, it is easy to patch in Debian packages and trivial to work around with "apt install liblzfse-dev" for everyone else.
I do have one remark, though: the idea behind SONAME/SOVERSION is that you have a common name for all versions which are binary backwards compatible. Using the full version liblzfse.so.1.0 instead of libltfse.so.1 (i.e., the SONAME) in your patch defeats that purpose: it will only work with the exact version 1.0, but not any (hypothetical) future, backwards-compatible versions.
Cheers Timo -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ╭────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ │ Timo Röhling │ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ │ 9B03 EBB9 8300 DF97 C2B1 23BF CC8C 6BDD 1403 F4CA │ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ ╰────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature