Re: Fwd: ITP: glib2, gtk2, inti
--- Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> wrote:
> > 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.
The libraries are only supposed to be used to port
programs to the upcoming GNOME 2 platform, do you
really think we should LART the GNOME developers for
this while they are busy trying to bring it out?
> > 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.
>
*sigh* perhaps not such a good idea, packaging
preview-type packages for Debian. Note that both Red
Hat and Mandrake seems to have no difficulty just
calling the packages (lib)gtk+2 and (lib)glib2 - if
you link against them you should be ready to take the
flak if the interfaces change anyway.
On a side note, who do I contact to remove myself from
the new maintainer application process?
Regards,
Michel
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Reply to: