Re: Bug#669373: RFS: flactag/2.0.1-1 ITP #507876
Hi,
In article <[🔎] 4FAE92F8.4070305@pocock.com.au>,
Daniel Pocock<daniel@pocock.com.au> wrote:
> "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"
But limbm3 (the immediate previous version)
is
v3.0.2, SONAME = libmusicbrainz3.so.6. I assume the ABI is 6 from this.
> 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)
I think having the number 4 in there is a good idea, as it means you can
easily have libmb3 and libmb4 installed side-by-side (to allow applications
using the older one to co-exist with the newer one).
> 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
My current preferred strategy is:
1. When the next server version is released (this week) release libmb4.0.2
using the existing scheme
2. Immediately release libmb5.0.0, with SONAME libmusicbrainz5.so.5
This will retain ABI compatibility with anyone currently using libmb4, and
also get around any naming issue with the old limbm2 package.
Andy
>
>
Reply to: