Re: Versionning of non-standalone library packages
[Sorry for the late reply.]
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Some upstream packages (eg. e2fsprogs) contain shared libraries which
> can be debian-packaged in their own package (eg. libcom_err, now in
> packages comerr{2g,g-dev}).
>
> Until now, I let the versions of library packages be the same as the
> e2fsprogs deb-package's version. However, this means that the
> package-version for a shared library does not match the library
> version.
>
> Though it is not critical, it may be good IMHO to provide both version
> numbers (the one of the lib itself, and the one of the source-package
> providing it) to be the upstream-version-number of the package.
> The library version will show the library's minor version-number,
> which does not appear anywhere else in control info, while the
> source-package's version will ensure the upstream version will bounce
> in the case where the library code changes and the upstream maintainer
> forgets to increment the lib's version.
What would the advantages of such a policy be?
If the different major revisions of the shared library are not compatible
(usually the case, since important changes are the reason for incrementing
the major revision) then the package will probably contain the major
revision number in the package name already, as in "libreadlineg2_2.1-7",
for example.
Thanks,
Chris
-- Christian Schwarz
schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
Debian has a logo! schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
Check out the logo PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
pages at http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/debian-logo/
Reply to: