Philipp Kern wrote:
On 20.05.2005, at 08:31, Shachar Shemesh wrote:The package itself had two major life cycles. As such, the source library is called "argtable2". As far as so version goes, it has version 4. Obviously, I will need to ad a "lib" at the beginning. At the moment, I have this:source package: argtable2 shared object: libargtable2-4 devel: libargtable2-4-dev(Donated by Steve Langasek)$ objdump -p /path/to/libfoo-bar.so.1.2.3 | sed -n -e's/^[[:space:]] *SONAME[[:space:]]*//p' | sed -e's/\([0-9]\)\.so\./\1-/; s/\.so\.//'
libargtable2-4, then. I used that script to decide on the name to begin with.
For the devel package I would take the binary package name without the SONAME like libargtable2-dev.
Probably a good idea, yes.
I'm having doubts about all choices, however:Should the source be named "argtable"? It seems that upstream is not particularly interested in maintaining the "1" series around, but one never knows. They are clearly and utterly incompatible, however, and there is some slim chance that someone will want to package "libargtable1".How is the tarball named? argtable-2.x oder argtable2-1.x?
The tarball is named argtable-2.4.tar.gz. You can still download argtable-1.4.tar.gz. Then again, opening the first tarbal produces a source directory called "argtable2" (no version). The final library is named "libargtable2.so.4" (no 4.0.0 or any other libtool standard). The original library didn't have an SOVERSION, and I had to patch the Makefile in order to put one in (will be sent to upstream as soon as the package is finalized).
Kind regards, Philipp Kern
Shachar
--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd.
Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html