Re: How package a binary library with unversioned soname?
Nikolaus Schulz <microschulz@web.de> writes:
> Okay, just to be sure: you suggest making a separate library package,
> but putting the libs in /usr/lib/<libpackage> and RPATH-linking the
> binaries, right? That is, treating the library as private, although it
> is a separate package. Phew.
Right.
I think this is the best of a set of bad options for the situation that
you're in, but that it's acceptable. You'll have to maintain tight
dependencies between the binary packages and the library package since
there aren't versioned SONAMEs to help and you basically can't use the
shlibs system the way it's intended given the structure of these
packages. But it's not really that different from a binary that allows
plugins that are shipped in a separate package; it just has the direction
of dependency reversed.
I don't know if others would disagree with me.
> I guess then there would be no need for a -dev package? Hmm. Upstream
> has included the necessary header files in every pacakage which needs
> them. Of course the packages would still need to build-depend upon the
> libraries, to make the linking succeed. No problem.
-dev packages are for Debian users to do development against the libraries
or for other packages that depend on those libraries to build against
them, neither of which seems to be useful outside of this complex of
packages itself.
> dpkg-shlibdeps would still choke upon the unversioned soname, but I
> could just hard-code the library dependency and be done with it. There
> would be no shlibs file. Again no problem, right?
That's my take, yes.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: