[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Shared library packaging question

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 08:24:05PM +0100, Wuttke, Joachim wrote:
> Thank you, Stanislav, for your helpful explanations.
> Regarding the name of the package:
> For many years the upstream project has been called "lmfit"
> (since the main application is curve fitting), but the shared
> library has been called "lmmin.so" (since the fundamental
> mathematical operation is minimization). This legacy makes
> it impossible to follow the "most common mechanism"
> (as the policy manual says) of choosing a package name
> that coincides with the library name. Hence the package name
> lmfit3.

Just a couple of last comments:

Many library packages in Debian have names very different from the
names of their upstream's source packages. This is a common case when
one source package generates several binary packages.

> Version 3 as in upstream.

Well, just a few hours ago the upstream had 3 in the version and 0
in SONAME ;) On what I would like to stress is that in normal cases
there is no simple equality between the soname and the version, and
if there is, then

"... it is a sign that there is a problem with the versioning scheme.
Scrap it, and bash the upstream with the libtool manual. It is usually
a good sign that either he has not read the manual thoroughly, or he
has not understood it, or both."

(Debian Library Packaging guide)

> Regarding the dev packages: Of course I will keep the
> development files separated from the shared library package.
> I just do not want thirdly a doc package; I still tend to pack
> the examples into the dev package.

You seem to continously misread my mails. I was writing precisely
about unpacking, installing and purging the *-dev package, and not the
main library package (that will be always installed in parallel).


Reply to: