Le dimanche 27 octobre 2019 à 21:43 +0100, Rafael Laboissière a écrit : > * Sébastien Villemot <sebastien@debian.org> [2019-10-27 20:28]: > > > I don't know if it's technically easy to do, but I think my preferred > > solution would be to have dh-octave extract the "api-vNN" string from > > the oct files, and then inject the corresponding dependency (octave- > > abi-NN). So, in particular, the NN in octave-abi-NN would be 53 right > > now. > > This is a simple-minded way of extracting the api-vNN information from > the : > > $ strings src/*.oct | grep ^api-v | uniq > api-v53 > > However, this does not works for *.mex files. > > It would be perhaps better to use mkoctfile directly for getting the > information: > > $ mkoctfile --print API_VERSION > api-v53 > > What do you think? The ideal way would be to extract the information from the binaries. But since that seems fragile (or maybe impossible for MEX files), ok for using the information from mkoctfile. > > The advantage of this scheme is that we would not have to manually > > update the @soname_version list that is currently implemented in dh- > > octave. > > > > It is also the closest technical equivalent to the former scheme, where > > dpkg-shlibdeps would extract the liboctave.so.N dependency at the ELF > > level to inject the corresponding dependency at the Debian package > > level. > > I agree with both remarks. However, I think that Mike suggested to use a > Debian-specific numbering in order to guard ourselves against future > upstream mistakes. Note that if upstream makes a mistake, it's not too difficult to create a workaround. In particular, we are not constrained to using a sequence of increasing integer numbers for the virtual package ABI; we can easily introduce intermediate numbers like 53.1 or 53-deb1. Thanks for your work on that, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part