[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#886399: RFS: opencascade/7.2.0-1 [ITP]



Then after each release you one need to make a diff over all headers
and create also symbols-files to be sure that the ABI is not broken.

Anton


2018-03-04 1:18 GMT+01:00 Kurt Kremitzki <kkremitzki@gmail.com>:
>
>
> On 03/03/2018 04:12 PM, Anton Gladky wrote:
>>
>> 2018-03-01 5:32 GMT+01:00 Kurt Kremitzki <kkremitzki@gmail.com>:
>> <skip>
>>>
>>> To summarize:
>>> 1. When the OCC was in Debian previously, and its current form in the
>>> Ubuntu
>>> PPA, we had e.g. libopencascade-foundation-7.1.0
>>> 2. Anton suggested e.g. libopencascade-foundation-7.2
>>> 3. Appendix A of the Debian New Maintainer's Guide [1] suggests
>>> libopencascade-foundation7 is correct
>>> 4. Some packages also use the form libopencascade7-foundation, and this
>>> seems most correct to me
>>>
>>> But which one should be used here? In the case of 4, would the -dev files
>>> just be e.g. libopencascade-foundation-dev? or libopencascade7-*-dev?
>>
>> </skip>
>>
>> Well it depends. If upstream guarantees the stable API/ABI between minor
>> releases, that it is OK to have  libopencascade-foundation-7. But to be on
>> the safe side, I think it is better to use libX,Y.Z-schema.
>>
>> Anton
>>
>
> They do use a major.minor.maintenance version scheme so perhaps the .Z
> portion would be unnecessary.


Reply to: