Re: versioned shlibs file -- when and why
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 03:44:32PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 04:04:11PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > This suggests that one ought to increase the version in the shlibs file
> > each time the ABI is changed, but not change it otherwise.
> >
> > So is "dh_makeshlibs -V" (i.e. bump the version uncondtionally) simply
> > the lazy-man's way of doing this?
>
> Yes. More kindly phrased, it's the conservative option; it always
> ensures that other packages' shared library dependencies are at least as
> tight as they need to be, so that if the maintainer screws up then they
> won't break. The flip side is that packages might end up with
> dependencies that are too tight and so find it harder to be upgraded in
> testing: GNOME packages used to have this problem until the gnome-core
> maintainer started generating a more accurate shlibs file.
>
> Joey, perhaps dh_makeshlibs(1) could have a note in its man page saying
> something like this?
I agree it would be nice if dh_makeshlibs had a note explaining what
you did about the -V option.
I also think it would be nice to have a note somewhere that the
optional version field is useful for changes in the library ABI.
Would the policy manual section on "shlibs" (either 9.1 or 9.4) be a
suitable place for that?
-Steve
--
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
Reply to: