Re: libfoo.so.X symlink not created at build time
On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 11:41:40AM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > I think I have understood you. So, in this case I am showing I don't need the
> > symlinks of type libfoo.so.X because the SONAME is itself the libfoo-x.y.z.so.
>
> yes.
>
Thanks for confirming this.
> >
> > > If you have something like libfoo-X.so there, then this is not a
> > > development symlink, but the SONAME symlink. (so if any doc says
> > > .so.X they mean -X.so in that case and if they say .so they mean the
> > > real .so file and not the -X.so).
> > >
> >
> > Then, I should provide in the library package _only_ the lib*-x.y.z.so files,
> > and obviously the *.la and *.so development symlinks into -dev package. Please,
> > correct me if I am wrong.
>
> yes.
>
> Also note that your soname now includes the whole 0.7.5 part, so that
> this number should most likely be part of the library package *name*.
> (as the -1 seem to have been before).
>
Yes. I had read that in the Library Packaging Guide.
> > Now, packages which depends on this library to build are going to fail with this
> > change.
>
> Things that build-depend on this package should most likely still be
> build-able with the -dev package installed. (Unless that version changes
> something else in comparison to packages already in the archive).
>
I hope that most of them be able of build with the -dev package installed. But I
tried with one that I maintain and it failed.
> > It can be said that a library transition has to be done. I'll rebuild
> > packages gotten by executing apt-cache rdepends, and contact maintainers.
>
> If the API did not change, then those packages might only need an
> binNMU.
>
OK.
> Also note that as the version in the soname seems to be the whole version
> of the library (at least I guess so, as it is as 0.7.5 seems quite
> similar to the package upstream version of 0.6.2 in sid),
> every future minor upstream release will most likely change the soname and
> need a full library transition cycle (and perhaps waiting for NEW and so on).
>
That is pretty bad, the need of a full library transition cycle for every minor
upstream release :(
> In other words: Unless you have some LART big enough to get upstream
> to switch back to stable ABIs, think twice if you want to keep
> maintaining this library or if simply droping it from Debian might be
> the better solution. I fear it might be everything but pleasent to deal with
> this all the time.
>
I think I lean more for trying first to talk to upstream about this. Not sure if
I will succeed in this, either.
> If you keep maintaining it, I'd also suggest asking the release team for
> advice (as they will have to deal with those transitions). Ideally after
> squeeze release, though.
>
OK. Yes, I was thinking in uploading this after squeeze is released to not
interfere with the process of releasing.
Thank you very much for your help.
--
Muammar El Khatib.
Linux user: 403107.
Key fingerprint = 90B8 BFC4 4A75 B881 39A3 1440 30EB 403B 1270 29F1
http://muammar.me | http://proyectociencia.org
,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
Reply to: