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

Re: Package name



Steve Langasek wrote:

But if I do introduce SONAME to the Debian version, what version should it have? The only sensible answer that I can think of is "0", as any other answer is sure to conflict with the upstream choice, should they come to their senses in the future. I don't see the major difference between saying "SONAME" version 0 and not giving SONAME at all, but I don't mind it so much either.

An so version of 0 is the simple so version least likely to conflict with
upstream's versioning in the future.  If you're worried that you may have to
go through ABI changes on your own before upstream gets around to the whole
sanity thing, then it's probably best to use a Debian-specific so versioning
scheme: e.g, libargtable2.so.0debian0, libargtable2.so.0debian1, etc.  You
can find examples of such library package names in the archive.
No, I think I'll go with "0".

Another thing that comes up is an incompatibility between the deb currently provided by the site (as well as binaries compiled with libargtable compiled from source) and the deb we would provide. Binaries compiled with the former two will depend on "libargtable2.so", while binaries compiled with the later will depend on "libargtable2.so.0". I can fix it by including the symlink from libargtable2.so to libargtable2.so.0 in the non-dev package, I think. Will it work?

If you include that symlink in the non-dev package, you have the same
problem as before with packages needing to conflict with one another.  That
being the case, I don't think you have any responsibility to work around
upstream's broken .debs in your Debian packages.
Lost you there. If the symlink is there for the non-dev, who am I conflicting with? Assuming I make sure that libargtable2 is not installable while argtable2 is on the machine (by either doing "conflicts" or providing an upgrade package), what are the risks? Even if some future version of argtable introduces versioning, the dev package always depends on the non dev of the precise same version, so it seems I'm not blocking any future upgrade path here.

Am I missing something here?

         Shachar

--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd.
http://www.lingnu.com/



Reply to: