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

Re: Package name

On Friday 20 May 2005 10:22 am, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> No, it's the same release. The deb file there is an alienated RPM, and
> is not in a state that can go into Debian.

So your options for this one are limited - you need to retain binary 
compatibility and can't go changing the SONAME or package name without 
breaking things. You CAN implement a SONAME where one is missing, but I don't 
see that skipping 1 is going to be any good.

> I'm not sure binary incompatible is strictly defined with argtable.

It's down to the exported functions - you won't be exporting any new 
functions, not exporting existing functions or exporting renamed / redeclared 
functions with different arguments compared to argtable2.4.tar.gz so it 
should be binary compatible.

> >What do you get from objdump ?
> Nothing useful.

Try objdump -T

That lists the functions exported - the basis of binary compatibility.

> Upstream was calling the end library 
> "libargtable2.so.4", but not linking the version into the binary at all.
> I added that (hence the "4"), but now that I come to think of it,
> upstream was probably trying to encode the "2.4" into the name, and did
> not mean binary incompatibility by it. If that's the case, the so
> should, by right, be called "libargtable.so.2". Problem is, changing it
> now will probably break stuff.

Then you may be stuck with it until the next release.

> Problem is, the only reason I'm getting anything at all from SONAME is
> because I patched the build system. When SONAME has nothing at all, can
> that be considered a version "0"?

I'd say yes, but I'm guessing here.

> If so, we can set it to "2"

AFAICT, you shouldn't skip 1. 

> and solve  
> all problems - leave a place if anyone decides to package version 1, and
> yet be compatible.

You may be forced to package 1 just to maintain the compatibility.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpGGLHsWOdvQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: