Re: Library package naming
Robert Bihlmeyer <robbe@orcus.priv.at> writes:
> Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp> writes:
>
> > I'd rather have shared libs with some Debian-specific
> > versioning than unversioned static library because it is easier to track
> > bugs on them, and fix them.
>
> The problem is that if upstream gets "real" later and uses proper
> versioning that may clash with our propped-on versioning scheme. This
> could be prevented by using sonames that are intentionally different
> (e.g. libijt-x.so.0 instead of libijt.so.0)
>
> The other problem with shared libs in the experimental stage is that
> they have to raise their major version number pretty often, generating
> a stream of libijtN packages, each of which has to be processed twice by
> ftpmasters (adding and later removing it).
I could always use release numbers as version numbers:
libijs-0.34.so
However, the value of having a shared library at this point in time is
doubtful. gimp-print will Build-Depend on it, and possibly hpijs, but
I don't think there will be many other users. I don't think that the
effort of packaging it as a shared library is worth the benefits right
now. The library is tiny, so it isn't going to gain much in reduced
memory usage.
I think I will use Sean's suggestion and have a static-only ijs-dev,
and once the specification and ABI are stable I will then make it
shared.
Thanks to all of you for your advice.
Regards,
Roger
--
Roger Leigh
** Registration Number: 151826, http://counter.li.org **
Need Epson Stylus Utilities? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 available on public keyservers
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: