Neil Williams wrote:
I think a more interesting question is whether I can NOT implement SONAME where one is missing? It seems that upstream does not like the idea of SONAME, and prefers to do without it. I wouldn't have insisted, except that without SONAME the package is not lintian clean.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 have still not totally given up on convincing him, though, so I'll be in touch.... :-)
Shachar
--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd.
Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html