On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 09:09:10PM -0700, Tom Lee wrote:
> By and large that's an easy & mostly mechanical change, but both
> libhiredis0.10 and libhiredis0.13 want to install the libhiredis.so.0
> symlink (each pointing to one of libhiredis.so.0.{10,13}).
From the upstream perspective this looks like misunderstanding: this
symlink shouldn't exist when the SONAME looks like "libhiredis.so.0.10"
which is the case here.
From the Debian perspective this violates Policy 8.2.
> I *think* what I want to do based on
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-replaces is
> to add the following to debian/control for libhiredis0.13:
>
> Replaces: libhiredis0.10
> Breaks: libhiredis0.10
This defeats the purpose of shared library package design used in Debian.
> Is this the right way to handle the situation, or is there a better way to
> do this?
Ideally you should find out whether $(DYLIB_MAJOR_NAME) is really useful
to anyone and if it isn't convince upstream to drop it.
--
WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature