Re: upstream library without a SONAME
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:50:47PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > So I guess I'm still searching for the answer to my original questions:
> > 1. Does Debian require a SONAME for a shared lib?
> Yes, although this may not be spelled out clearly in policy. [...]
> > 2a. If so, what to do about upstream packages that don't supply one?
> I would suggest that it's a maintainer's responsibility, as liaison
> to the upstream developers, to petition them to adopt SONAMEs in any
> shared libraries they provide that will be linked by external
While I agree with you, and have started the petitioning process, I'd
still really appreciate suggestions on what SONAME to use for the
package between now and such time as upstream adopts a SONAME.
I could arbitrarily start with SONAME libInventor.so.0, and fix up the
packaging with an epoch if I get stuck later. Or, since the source
version is 2.something, I could start with SONAME libInventor.so.2.
Or is the correct approach to just embed the entire source version
in the SONAME, i.e. libInventor.so.2.1.5-7 (yes, upstream source
version ends in -7)?
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants