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

Re: dpkg-shlibdeps couldn't find library ... warning vs error

Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 14:58:34 -0400, Crim, Christopher wrote:

>> I have tried searching for inforamtion related to to naming conventions
>> for shared library names but the best I can come up with is that they
>> need to be prefixed with "lib" and suffixed with ".so" and possibly the
>> so number and revision.  A name such as "libcom.debian.foo.bar.so"
>> should be valid.  If not I would appreciate being pointed to such
>> requirements.

> I'm not sure now, there's anywhere properly documenting these details.
> I don't think the debian-policy manual contains rationale for these.
> I've for now locallt documented the split_soname() function, willcheck
> whether one of the man pages can also be improved.

Policy does not document these details either.  It mentions the two normal
conventions (libfoo.so.<version> and libfoo-<version>.so), but only in the
context of helping packagers understand what to look for when figuring out
the SONAME of a library.  It sounds like packaging may actually fail if a
package ships shared libraries that are too far afield of the normal
conventions because dpkg-shlibdeps imposes some restrictions, so maybe it
would be worth adding some details there.  But I'm not sure how often this
comes up.

Usually I refer people to the Libtool documentation on maintaining the
SONAME, which documents two specific and reasonable conventions in the
context of how Libtool manages the version information.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: