Re: [DebianGIS] gdal package names?
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 11:57 +0100, Silke Reimer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 10:54:06AM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 05:20:23PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > Hi debian-gis, Silke,
> > >
> > > I was looking at the gdal package in cvs, and I wonder why you have put
> > > the debian version into the package names? Shouldn't it be libgdal1.3.1
> > > and libgdal1.3.1-dev instead of libgdal1.3.1-1 and libgdal1.3.1-1-dev?
> > > Will you really add ABI changes in debian versions, as the package names
> > > suggest?
> > >
> >
> > The same thing asked by me on the -devel list :)
>
> I agree completely with you. I already statet on this list that I
> wouldn't included that version in the package name. In my opinion the
> soname is not exactly correlated to the software version - even when
> the soname has to change each time a new gdal version is released due
> to the not yet stable C++ ABI.
>
> I would suggest to add the soname to the package name and use the gdal
> version as debian version, i.e. libgdal<soname>-dev-1.3.1-1,
> libgdal<soname>-1.3.1-1 etc.
I committed the name change in CVS. The -1 refers to the SONAME rather
than the debian version. So the first upload would be
libgdal1.3.1-1_1.3.1-1, the second libgdal1.3.1-1_1.3.1-2 and so on.
This is based on the library packaging guide which says:
"To distinguish the package name and the SONAME version number, for
library packages with a name ending in a numeric, the form
lib[libraryname]-[SONAME version number] is preferred."
Although the library name doesn't really end in a numeric I was trying
to go for something as close to accepted policy as possible.
The policy manual states that the package name must change. This is to
force all depending packages to rebuild for the new ABI. Am I wrong
here? Is there another way to make this happen and conform to policy?
I'm not in favor of changing the SONAME ourselves since it would be
inconsistent with the actual SONAME which will hopefully be updated
correctly in the future.
Also I've asked about this on the mentors list and somebody said they
thought, given the situation, that putting the version number in the
package name "seems ok":
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/12/msg00282.html
I've seen some packages with libfoo6a, libfoo6b, etc. Is libgdal1a,
libgdal1b, etc. an option?
Steve
Reply to: