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

Re: Different versions between library and its supplied binary program



Roi Rodriguez schrieb:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm packaging a library (harminv, which implements a method to solve
> harmonic inversion problems) which supplies a program which makes use
> of the library... According to the section 8.2 of Debian Policy, i've
> to put the program into the -dev package, or in its own package.
> 
> The problem is that, at some point, mainstream author decided that
> complete package version (library + program) is different than the
> libraries version (which, as he tells, is an 'internal-use' version).
> Library is actually 2.0.3, and the complete package is 1.3 (which is
> the program version too). This makes lintian complain about it if i
> package it as harminv1.3. My question is, what may i do?:
> 
> 1) Make 3 packages: libharminv2.0.3, libharminv-dev, and harminv1.3,
> this last only holding the program and its man page.
> 2) Make 2 packages, including harminv program into the -dev package.
> 3) Ignore lintian error, and provide harminv1.3 (shared libraries),
> and harminv-dev (static libraries, header files and binary program).
> 
> What do you think is better?

The so-version of the library does not need to match the project version
number (If it does it is most likely a sign that upstream did not
understand what so-versioning means [1]).
So, create 3 packages with the following names:
liharminv2 (matching the so-name), libharmin-dev and harminv.
The version number of all three packages is 1.3.
Please read Junichis library packaging guide [2]. It should help you
understand how to correctly package a library.

Cheers,
Michael


[1]http://extra1.tlse.eikonex.net/autobook/autobook_92.html
[2]http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html
-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: