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

Re: versioned shlibs file -- when and why

On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 03:44:32PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 04:04:11PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > This suggests that one ought to increase the version in the shlibs file
> > each time the ABI is changed, but not change it otherwise.
> > 
> > So is "dh_makeshlibs -V" (i.e. bump the version uncondtionally) simply
> > the lazy-man's way of doing this?
> Yes. More kindly phrased, it's the conservative option; it always
> ensures that other packages' shared library dependencies are at least as
> tight as they need to be, so that if the maintainer screws up then they
> won't break. The flip side is that packages might end up with
> dependencies that are too tight and so find it harder to be upgraded in
> testing: GNOME packages used to have this problem until the gnome-core
> maintainer started generating a more accurate shlibs file.
> Joey, perhaps dh_makeshlibs(1) could have a note in its man page saying
> something like this?

I agree it would be nice if dh_makeshlibs had a note explaining what
you did about the -V option.

I also think it would be nice to have a note somewhere that the
optional version field is useful for changes in the library ABI.
Would the policy manual section on "shlibs" (either 9.1 or 9.4) be a
suitable place for that?


by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants

Reply to: