Re: SONAME vs illegal package name
Tim Brown <timb@nth-dimension.org.uk> writes:
> I'm packaging OpenVAS and have the following problem. The upstream
> package for the component I am working on is called openvas-libraries,
> so I was initially going to package it as libopenvas. However, it
> contains two libraries, libopenvas and libopenvas_hg and I was getting
> complaints that libopenvas didn't match the SONAME (for
> libopenvas_hg.so), so I broke it down into one package per library (and
> a dev package for each) - libopenvas and libopenvas_hg. However I'm now
> getting complaints that the package name of libopenvas_hg is illegal.
The first question to ask is whether the two libraries will ever
separately change SONAMEs. If the SONAME will always change in lockstep
for both libraries, ignore lintian and just use a single library package.
Multiple library packages are only useful if the libraries are going to
change independently (and probably only useful if applications that link
against the libraries may conceivably link to only one of them and not the
other).
I'm actually considering removing that lintian tag, since it's frequently
the wrong thing to do.
If the two libraries do change independently, you'll have to change the
library package name to not include an underscore since underscore isn't
allowed in package names in Debian. The recommendation (which will make
lintian happy) is to replace _ with - in the package name.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: