Re: SONAME best practice
Andy Hawkins <andy@gently.org.uk> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:26:04AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> 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?
>
>I think I'd prefer libmb5.so...., as it maintains consistency with the
>libmb3 packages.
>
I think the previous pattern is not so helpful and we can also look at it in a slightly different perspective, consistency with the pattern used by other libs
>It's also clearer to the person installing it exactly what they're
>getting.
>Otherwise, the libmb3 packages would have been called libmusicbrainz-6,
>which doesn't obviously tell them which version of the API they're
>installing.
>
Not quite, that previous package should have had SONAME libmusicbrainz.so.6 and pkg name libmusicbrainz6(-dev) - at least that is what my impression is after reading the lib packaging guide
Reply to: