Re: [DebianGIS] libgdal renaming
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 12:32:54PM +0100, Silke Reimer wrote:
>
> Seeing this warning I have rethought our decission. I think it doesn't
> make any sense to have a new package name while the soname still is the
> same. The only reason to have different names is to have different
> versions of the same library concurrently on the system - which is not
> possible when they have conflicting files.
>
> Sorry, to begin this discussion again :-|
>
> I would vote to stick to our decission about the package name but adapt
> the soname of libgdal to have an minor and subversion, so that the full
> soname is 1.3.1 instead of 1. This will have the advantage that there
> isn't any need to rebuild qgis or other package just because a new gdal
> version is present since its concurrent installation on the same system
> is possible.
>
> It requires though that Frank changes the soname each time he releases a
> new gdal version - which isn't too difficult I think. So we need some
> feedback from you, Frank.
>
I think Frank already expressed his tought about that (which caused our
decision about renaming). Anyway - for consistency - we will need to rename
anyway the package as libgdal<soname> (e.g. libgdal2 currently)
at every release. The true benefit
in embedded soname changing is the possibility of co-existence among
multiple versions of the same lib (and so avoing immediate brokeness
in sid at every new release) which is not doubtful.
Anyway, soname versioning is an upstream affair, I vote against using
autonomously a different soname, without Frank agreement. And he already
posed veto about that. Dunno if he changed his mind in the mean time...
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: