library questions
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hello again, and thanks for your quick responses to my last queries.
I have two questions tonight, both relating to a package I have just
adopted. The package in question is objpak, a library of Objective-C
classes. The previous debianized version is very old, so I have
chosen to simply start from scratch with the current upstream
version. The two issues I face are:
1. Major version number vs. soname
The old debianized version was libobjpak.so.1.1.1. The new
upstream version is version 1.8.18, which would still mean it
would be linked to libobjpak.so.1, but the interface has changed
significantly (all the classes have been renamed).
There are no Debian packages which depend on objpak.
Given the differences in interface, should I bump the shared
library version to 2? If I do that, what happens when the
upstream version goes to 2.0 (assuming it does that any time
soon)? Or should I leave it at the default, since it won't break
any existing or future (since objpak is not in hamm at all) Debian
packages?
2. Compiler differences
Objective-C implementation differs between compilers (or more
precisely, between compiler front-ends). Thus, it is impossible
to use a library compiled by GNU Objective-C with a binary
compiled by some other Objective-C system.
Objpak is part of a complete Objective-C system, which I would
like to package eventually (it does a few things gobjc does not).
However, objpak is sufficiently portable and useful that it should
also be available for users of the GNU compiler -- that's what I'm
packaging now.
Obviously, there has to be some way to allow both builds to exist
on the same system without conflict, since any package which
depends on one of them cannot use the other interchangeably. (A
conflict between -dev packages does not seem like nearly as large
a problem, but it might be avoidable too.)
The obvious answer is to name the libraries differently. My first
idea is to have 'objpak1' and 'objpak-gcc1'... on the other hand,
I could use 'objpak-poc1' and 'objpak1'. Have there been any
policy decisions on this sort of thing? Is there a better
solution? Does it even matter, since hardly anyone uses
Objective-C? :-)
Thanks for your time,
- --Rob
- --
Rob Tillotson N9MTB Internet: rob@io.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBNWO74XR+ngWruQ4VAQGKrAQAioVterH2PcYgl/03dnQOnS13itVFWhEF
sd0yYAbuSiWU04c5iY8t0AQBBwysoTqWRp+o9yt7mwh4dhIwHGeZXJCig2by3sex
0VPFgX/SIIXwjCTRMIxLN7lOUBmi6g09iKsyD/j8Hy2pBBVS3KtV7t+Yt0n1B9Wv
c04jAGCz1s8=
=DkFJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: