Re: Fwd: ITP: glib2, gtk2, inti
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Paolo Molaro wrote:
> On 06/05/01 Michèl Alexandre Salim wrote:
> > > Please LART upstream heavily and give the packages a
> > > proper name. That
> > > tradition has done it wrong is no reason to continue
> > > doing it the
> > > wrong way.
> The version numbering used upstream is completely reasonable:
> check the archives for the discussions, non need to replay them
> again.
It is not reasonable. The major number of a library should change IFF there
is a backwards-incompatible change in the library's binary interface; and the
Debian package name should reflect the major number of the library. Any other
arrangement, though it may seem 'reasonable' to the library authors, is a
disaster for people in the real world who have to work with such libraries
from the outside.
> > Well this is a bit late :) Following the current
> > Debian package names I am calling them libglib1.3,
> > libgtk+1.3 since they are not backward-compatible with
> > the 1.2 series yet might change prior to version 2.0
> Note that probably all the gtk 1.3.x releases will be incompatible,
> so the package names should include also the micro number.
If they want to call the upstream package 'gtk 1.3.x' to indicate where in the
development cycle they are, that's fine; but the library soname should not be
governed by marketing, and upstream /should/ be LARTed for this.
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Reply to: