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

Re: upstream library without a SONAME



On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 05:16:31PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:

> 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
> > applications.
> 
> 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.

As others have said, you should probably start with 0, and keep tabs on when
binary compatibility changes.  This will probably involve some manual testing
if you can't keep up with changes to the upstream source.  Once upstream is
convinced, they can (and should) simply pick up where you left off, with the
same version number.

-- 
 - mdz



Reply to: