Re: SONAME best practice
Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> wrote:
>On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 08:16:08AM +0000, Andy Hawkins wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In article <[🔎] 4FB20730.1090005@pocock.com.au>,
>> Daniel Pocock<daniel@pocock.com.au> wrote:
>> > There has been some discussion on this list about flactag and
>libmusicbrainz
>> >
>> > libmusicbrainz SONAMEs have a colourful history and this is
>reflected in
>> > the way previous versions have been packaged
>> >
>> > e.g.
>> >
>> > SONAME = libmusicbrainz3.so.6
>> > v2.1.x (currently in Debian, src pkg = libmusicbrainz-2.1) SONAME =
>> > libmusicbrainz.so.4
>> > v4.0.x (on mentors) SONAME = libmusicbrainz4.so.0
>>
>> I'm in the process of creating a libmb5, in order to get around the
>blocking
>> issues in getting libmb4 into Debian.
>>
>> The new version will be 5.0.0, the library is
>libmusicbrainz5.so.1.0.0
>>
>> I think this is a much more sensible way of doing things.
>>
>> The '5' in the first part is (I think) sensible, as it easily allows
>> multiple versions of libmusicbrainz to be installed side-by-side (for
>> example, libmb3 still works, so any applications that need it should
>be able
>> to install it side by side with libmb5).
>
>You already get that co-installability if you use e.g.
>libmusicbrainz.so.4
>and libmusicbrainz.so.5, in which case the packages would be
>libmusicbrainz4 and libmusicbrainz5. With libmusicbrainz4.so.0 and
>libmusicbrainz5.so.1.0.0, they would be libmusicbrainz4-0 and
>libmusicbrainz5-1.
>
>Mike
>
>
I agree that this is valid and that these libs/pkgs can co-exist
My preference would be for the soname libmusicbrainz.so.5, is there any outright reason to avoid the other way of doing it, or it is largely at the discretion of upstream in each case?
Reply to: