Re: advise needed for library packaging
On Monday 29 December 2008 02:01:56 Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Martin Godisch <martin@godisch.de> wrote:
> > I'm not doing library packaging all day and I'm a bit unsure about the
> > new sleuthkit upstream release. It would be nice if some of you could
> > have a look at sleuthkit 3.0.0 here [1] and 2.0.5 in unstable and tell
> > me what I did wrong with the new release regarding upgrade path and
> > soname change and such.
>
> Firstly, make sure you've read libpkg-guide and it's bugs (especially
> the RC one):
>
> http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html
> http://bugs.debian.org/libpkg-guide
>
> Firstly, do you need that library? Nothing in sid seems to depend on
> it, not even sleuthkit.
Library packages which nobody {build-}depends on yet, sits in the same boat as
the rest of the leaf (application) packages, so general rules should apply:
if the library is really useful (i.e. generic) for the mere programmers, who
are Debian users in that case and helps them to reduce redundancy (not
reinventing the wheel every now and then, and not wasting disk space all over
the place) has its place in the Debian archive, of course provided there is
someone to take care of it. Does that make sense?
> I would suggest adding a .symbols file for the new ABI so you can
> detect ABI breakage in newer upstream versions.
>
> -dev packages should not have SONAMEs in their package names, what is
> the reason for the libtsk-dev -> libtsk3-3-dev change? If the API has
> changed incompatibly, libtsk-3-dev might be more appropriate.
Why is libfoo-X-dev better than libfooX-dev, where 'X' is being some sort of
API version discriminator ?
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: