Re: Problems with new policy
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 08:38:19PM +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> going slightly off-topic, this problem is a good example of i dubt i
> always had with debian sonames. shouldn't a package name libfoo4 provide
> a library named libfoo.so.4.x.x?
That depends on whether the library is actually called foo4 (i.e. if the
link line is -lfoo4) or whether it's just version 4 of libfoo. Even in
the latter case there's no reason why the soname should have to match
the version number of the package, because you only need to change the
soname when you make changes that affect binary compatibility.
> so, the right name is
>
> libsip-python2.1.so.2.0.0
If the soname wanted to be 2.0.0, then yes, but this means that people
who link against the library will have to use -lsip-python2.1,
potentially breaking source compatibility with other distributions.
> or
> libsip2-python2.1.so
This (no soname) is only allowed if you regard the library as private
and keep it somewhere other than /usr/lib.
> or
>
> libsip.so.2.python2.1.x.y... ugly! it is even possible?
That sounds best to me in the absence of any better coordination from
upstream, or being able to use a single libsip. I agree that it's ugly,
though.
Do libsip upstream set any sonames? Is it important that binaries linked
against it on Debian can be run on other distributions?
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: