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

Re: Removal of postgis [was: List of remaining libraries for C++ transition]

Il giorno dom, 27/11/2005 alle 04.53 -0800, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
> > > I guess the binary package has changed names from libpostgis1-pg74 to
> > > libpostgis1-pg7.4, and this covers us for the C++ ABI transition?
> > The binary package keep the same name since it already included the '1'.
> > The library name is liblwgeom.so.1 for 1.0.4 (no change) and
> > libpostgis.so.0 for 0.9.2 (new library).
> - this is not the same binary package name.  One is pg74, the other is
>   pg7.4.
> - the '1' has *nothing* to do with this thread, which is about dealing with
>   the g++ ABI change.
> - the libpostgis1-pg74 package is either a badly-structured (and badly
>   named) shared library package, or it's a badly-structured plugin package.
>   I can't tell which very easily, because the packaging is sufficiently
>   wrong.  If this is a shared library package, the library should be in
>   /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib/postgresql/lib/, there is a missing -dev
>   package, and the package ought to be named liblwgeom1.  If it's a plugin
>   package, the use of an soname and shlibs is superfluous and misleading.
>   And also would mean that no package rename is required.

There is no -dev package since this library is not meant to be used by
any developer. The standard postgresql SQL language is extended with
some statements that use geographic data. When postgresql server have to
execute that statements then it load the library that contains the
statement implementation.

The new location for the library file should be the right one
since /usr/lib/postgresql/VERSION/lib is already full of all postgresql

> > There is probably no change for a real transition since the old package
> > had FTBFS bugs and hence it wasn't used that much. Some user where
> > subscribed to pkg-grass@alioth and already tested the new package and
> > developed an upgrade path.
> That's not really an acceptable rationale for not handling an ABI
> transition.  If the package *exists*, the only reasonable assumption is that
> it has users; and those users deserve smooth transitions, because smooth
> transitions are part of what *makes* Debian an attractive system for users.

The only "users" it can have are accessing to this library via
postgresql. Postgresql need to look for the corresponding library. The
old one is a different directory (and it will not be found with new
postgresql) since postgresql migrated to a versioned system that use
different directories, one per version.


Reply to: