Re: [DebianGIS] gdal package names?
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 15:18 +0100, Silke Reimer wrote:
8<----------snip---------
> Once again: I don't think that we should have the version in the
> package name. I would compose the package name by adding a number to
> libgdal which has to change each time the API changes. This would
> allow us to have different gdal-versions on the system if necessary.
>
> We have to talk how to come to this number. I think about different
> possibilities
>
> 1) Just increase the number by 1 so we had first libgdal1 and we will
> now have to change to libgdal2 etc.
I think this could be a problem later. Our future goal is to have a
libgdal_c.so and libgdal++.so(we can discuss those names later :) and
each has a separate soname that gets updated correctly. Then if the
soname goes to 2 we'll have already used it. But I guess the package
name will be libgdal++ at that point anyway. It also seems wrong to have
a number where the soname normally is that isn't the actual soname.
Maybe this is ok if we patch the source to change the soname each time?
I was kind of hoping to avoid having to figure out how to do that
though.
> 2) Use the package version (I would vote against it since I hope that
> at some point we will arrive at a rather stable API and won't havt to
> change the package name just because there is a new gdal release
This appeals to me. The package names will be a little wonky, but it
makes it a little clearer what is going on IMO. The soname is there, and
the version number corresponds always to the current version and forces
the ABI update.
Steve
> 3) Use the soname which is not necessarily the same as the package
> version
>
> I hope this doesn't lead to more confusion now ;-)
>
> Silke
Reply to: