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

Re: [RFS] Libnewuoa


On 03.12.20 10:07, Andrius Merkys wrote:
> Hi Maarten,
> On 2020-12-02 21:42, Maarten L. Hekkelman wrote:
>> package is at https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/libnewuoa
>> now, let's see what I will learn this time... ;-)
> I noticed there are patches for CMakeLists.txt and pkg-config. It would
> be nice to forward them to the upstream and discuss the changes with
> them, maybe they will incorporate them. At least pc.patch might be
> interesting for the upstream, as this would benefit also non-Debian
> users of newuoa.
> In configure.patch you are introducing the SOVERSION of the shared
> library. From my experience, this is generally frowned upon in Debian,
> as the choice and the control of SONAME/SOVERSION should lie with the
> upstream. Whenever I have this issue I turn to the upstream for
> solution. Adding SOVERSION via patch is kind of last resort, and I see
> it is done at least in some packages, usually with a letter 'd' appended
> to designate that this SOVERSION is controlled by Debian [1]. Maybe
> other Debian Med members have better suggestions.
> [1]
> https://sources.debian.org/src/ros-geometric-shapes/0.7.0-3/debian/patches/0001-Add-Debian-specific-SOVERSION.patch/?hl=3#L3

The soversion becomes part of a library's package name, so we often do
not have any other choice than to make a version up. I typically use "0"
as the soversion so this can be updated to whatever upstream shall
decide to come up with at a later time. If the libraries are not
separated out but reside together with the regular binaries in a single
package then there is no need to set the soversion if I get this right
since the ABI is always compatible since all parts that constitute the
binary/ies are shipping together.

To talk to upstream is always a good idea.



Reply to: