Re: [MoM] ampl-netlib-solvers
Hi Andrei,
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:39:42AM +0200, Andrei Rozanski wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 03:31:21PM +0200, Andrei Rozanski wrote:
> > > I have worked on a few changes. Can you please check if it make sense?
> > >
> > > https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/ampl-netlib-solvers/-/blob/master/debian/patches/fix-makefile-shared-lib.patch
>
> Many thanks for the commits. I will work on the reading suggestions.
As promised I have pushed changes to use d-shlibs. The good thing in
d-shlibs is that you can't deliver a library package that is wrong - the
bad thing is that you need to understand its principles. It expects the
name of the binary package featuring the shared library to be named like
the library name itself + SOVERSION (thus you have to set a soversion
(which I did in the makefile patch with the -Wl,-soname option and it
also expects that *.so is a symlink. The development package also
needs to follow that naming scheme thus it is libraryname-dev. So the
degrees of freedom in choosing the names were restricted when accepting
that we decided the name of the static lib should be libamplsolver.a.
I'm somehow considering to also name the source package libamplsolver to
have some consistency here. This would also mean we should rename the
git repository to libamplsolver. Finally its a matter of esthetics so I
want to hear your opinion about this. Please note: Changing the source
package **after** the package has been accepted is a real nuisance since
it would require another round trip through the new queue.
Once we have decided about the name of the source package I consider
this library as basically ready. What you can do is installing the
resulting DEBs and try to link against your original target.
Hope this helps
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: