Re: Bug#669373: RFS: flactag/2.0.1-1 ITP #507876
On 12/05/12 15:59, Andy Hawkins wrote:
> Hi.
> In article <[🔎] 4FAE801D.2010908@pocock.com.au>,
> Daniel Pocock<daniel@pocock.com.au> wrote:
>> Does the -dev package need the ABI number in the name?
>
> If it does, then there isn't an issue. The dev will me libmb4-3-dev.
>
>> libmusicbrainz-dev -> /usr/include/musicbrainz/*.h ?
>
> That won't work really.
>
>> Given that the ABI number will probably be bumped up to 5 anyway,
>
> The ABI is currently 3. The '4' bit in it is the upstream version number.
> The lib package should be called libmb4-3, not sure about the dev. If it we
> call that libmb4-3-dev, then that also removes the clash.
>
>> ABI number = 5
>> SONAME = libmusicbrainz.so.5
>> Package version = 4.1.x or 5.0.x
>> => Package name = libmusicbrainz5 and libmusicbrainz5-dev
>>
>> and filenames:
>> libmusicbrainz5_4.1.0-1_amd64.deb
>> libmusicbrainz5-dev_4.1.0-1_amd64.deb
>>
>>
>> (as described in my previous email on 1 May)
>
> I'm not keen on this. If I update the ABI, I'm updating the upstream version
> number too. It'll end up being libmusicbrainz5-4 if I do that. In this
> instance, the '5' is *not* the ABI name, it's the upstream version number.
>
> That's how the libmb packages have always been done before.
Emulating what was done before is probably not so important because the
API has changed quite a lot: we just need to make sure that there is:
a) a clear distinction between the old packages and the new ones
b) a straightforward way to get the new package into the archive
Please look again at the SONAME issue, from my email on 1/5:
"Both Debian packages are called libmusicbrainz4, yet
OLD: code v2.1.x, SONAME = libmusicbrainz.so.4, ABI = 4
NEW: code v4.0.x, SONAME = libmusicbrainz4.so.3, ABI = 3"
The very first step, before even deciding upon the package name, is to
decide about the SONAME
Should the number 4 be there? Or should 4.0.x have been released using
SONAME libmusicbrainz.so.5? (same as v2.1.x, but bumping up the ABI number)
My recommendation is to go back to the old SONAME format. In any case,
that decision must be made before the package can be named.
If you continue using the SONAME libmusicbrainz4.so.*, then I think you
might legitimately end up with dev packages having names like
libmusicbrainz4-3-dev
but I just think that is confusing because of the way `libmusicbrainz4'
has been used in the past
Reply to: