Bug#758015: lintian: [new check] No SOVERSION in packages name, Policy 8.2
Eric Maeker <eric.maeker@gmail.com> writes:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.5.10.4
> Severity: wishlist
> Dear Maintainer/DD/Mentors,
> Based on Shared Librairies, Packaging Policy 8.2.
I'm not sure what part of Policy 8.2 you're looking at when filing this
bug. That section is about how to handle support files for shared
libraries, and doesn't appear to be related to the bug that you filed?
> When the upstream source is not versionned (stable ABI),
> the source package can be released without the SOVERSION.
I'm not completely sure what you're saying here. *All* shared libraries
in Debian should have a versioned SONAME, regardless of whether or not the
ABI is stable. However, yes, the normal case is that the source package
itself is not versioned, since normally there is no need to have more than
one version of the shared library in Debian at the same time. Separate
versioned source packages are reserved for cases where it's useful to have
multiple versions of the library in Debian (for huge transitions, for
example, or because some out-of-archive binaries may require old versions
of the library).
> In this case (source lib without version), lintian could check if all
> the package are correctly unversionned and raise a warning when it found
> a discordance.
> Eg of an unversionned source package:
> libfoo -> libfoo{-dev,-dbg,-headers} -> Ok (no version on all packages)
This is a library without any shared library package? Yes, that's okay,
although very unusual (but I think there are a few C++ libraries that are
all templates and work this way).
> libfoo -> libfoo, libfoo1{-dev,-dbg,-headers} -> Wrong
This is wrong because "libfoo" is basically always wrong.
> libfoo -> libfoo1, libfoo{-dev,-dbg,-headers} -> Wrong
On the other hand, the only thing that's wrong here is the -dbg package.
For the rest, this should be the *normal* packaging pattern for a shared
library.
> You can also read the following bugs #567510, #693911.
Both of those get at more specific issues, and I do agree with both of
those bugs, but I'm confused as to what you were trying to report or add
here.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: