OOps, I didn't reply to list either :p
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 15:16 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> (please reply to list)
>
> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 18:41 +0100, PICCA Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > > You want the debian package version, not the library version. So I think
> > > lintian is correct here: liblog4tango4 version will be ${binary:Version}
> > > (something like 7.1.1-1), not 4.0.3-1.
> >
> > ok so I can generate a log4tango4-dev debian package with the 7.1.1 version
> > which provided the library liblog4tango.so.4.0.3
> >
> > debian version != library version
>
> Exactly
>
> >
> > > Unless you are doing something _really_ weird and changing the version
> > > per-binary?
> >
> > Yes I have one package tango-7.1.1 with a sub package log4tango-4.0.3
> >
> > this is why I decided to change the debian version for the log4tango4-* debian binary packages
> > to keep in synchro with the real log4tango upstream package version.
>
> You shouldn't do this. It adds complexity for no gain (after all, the
> _source_ version is 7.1.1, not 4.0.3). Library versions do not match
> project versions, since they generally used to track interface issues.
>
--
Saludos,
Felipe Sateler
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part