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 ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpur71Wc6Qp3.pgp
Description: PGP signature