Re: Library sonames and unstable libraries
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 08:46:59AM +0100, Andreas Fester wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> >>> Too, there are actually two forms of library soname file naming used:
> >>> libfoo.so.1.2.3
> >>> and
> >>> libfoo-1.2.3.so
> >> Only the first one is mentioned in the various packaging guides,
> >
> > hmmm ? excluding this?
> >
> > http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#shldevpackagecontents
>
> Right; I should read the documents I refer to more carefully ;)
>
> >> so I suppose that the format libfoo-1.2.3.so only exists for historical
> >> reasons, right? IMHO new packages have to use the form libfoo.so.1.2.3 ?
> >
> > That's not quite the case.
>
> Yes, Steve already said that; so, if I understand it correctly, none of
> the two formats is preferred over the other one, i.e. if upstream
> uses either of them, both would be valid for Debian, right?
I couldn't find it (or would have mentioned it), but dpkg-shlibdeps (I
believe) used to contain a comment to the effect that the
libfoo-1.2.3.so-style sonames were not to be encouraged. This might
have just been a Debian interpretation resulting from some
(hypothetical) bug report from maintainers of a package using that
style (or something).
Justin
Reply to: