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

Re: Hamlib status in Debian



Hi Adrian,

first, many thanks for your detailed answers!

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 03:10:23PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi Ervin!
> 
> On 03/26/2016 01:00 PM, Ervin Hegedüs - HA2OS wrote:
> > As you can see, the naming convention is not so consistent. There
> > are some packages with simple "hamlib" pattern, and there are
> > some with hamlib2. I don't know, what was the reason that so
> > envolved.
> 
> The reason for the numeral suffix are different ABI versions of
> a shared libary.
> 
> A library called "libfoo.so.1" indicates an ABI version of "1" and
> the library package is consequently called "libfoo1". If a library
> has the ABI version "2", then the SO file should be called "libfoo.so.2"
> and, consequently, the library package "libfoo2".

right, that's clean now.

> See the Debian Policy for more [1].

thanks,
 
> As for the "ubuntu" suffix, that just means the package was repackaged
> or updated for Ubuntu. This allows Debian and Ubuntu maintainers and
> users to quickly determine the origin of a package. Without the
> suffix, the package can normally be assumed to be imported from
> Debian to Ubuntu.

that was clean for me too, I just wrote that, because I'm using
Mint (for desktop - on any other places I'm using Debian) -
nevermind.
 
> > I think that would be switch to a new naming convention: the new
> > package hierarchy called by hamlib3, eg: libhamlib3++-dev,
> > libhamlib3-dev, ... libhamlib3-perl, python-libhamlib3. All
> > packages could built from 3.1 Git version.
> 
> No, for the aforeentioned reasons you shouldn't do that. As long
> as the ABI version of the libary doesn't change, you shouldn't
> change the ABI version suffix in the package name.

yes, that's clean now - thanks.

> > But there are several "dummy" (?) package, which named hamlib1,
> > hamlib2, hamlib3, hamlib4 - why are these package names exists?
> > I see, that all of them are virtual packages, but why had created
> > them?
> 
> Where are you seeing these? 'apt-cache search' doesn't list them
> on Debian unstable.

I just found that on desktop:

$ dpkg -l "*hamlib*"
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend
|/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name       Version                            Architecture  Description
+++-==========-==================================-=============-===========================================================================================================================
un  hamlib1    <none>                             <none>        (no description available)
un  hamlib2    <none>                             <none>        (no description available)
un  hamlib3    <none>                             <none>        (no description available)
un  hamlib4    <none>                             <none>        (no description available)
ii  libhamlib2 1.2.15.3-1ubuntu4                  amd64         Run-time library to control radio transceivers and receivers

I've checked it on Debian (stable) - there aren't any packages with
these names.
 
> > What do you think about these? How can I help to you to start to
> > make the new packages?
> 
> I suggest you start reading the Debian New Maintainer's Guide [2].
> 
> This will help you to answer most of your questions why certain
> things are done in a particular way within Debian.

many thanks for all of your helps and instructions. 

73, Ervin


-- 
I � UTF-8


Reply to: