Bug#431809: News (and proposal)
The following are excerpts from a message by a lead PoDoFo developer who is
very willing to help Debian podofo packaging.
> PoDoFo's SONAME for release versions is the version number, eg 0.5.0 .
> Each release breaks binary and source compatibility and will continue to
> do so until 1.0, but the soname versioning permits different versions of
> the library to coexist.
>
> The -dev packages will have to be muturally exclusive (as the APIs are
> incompatible), but there's plenty of precedent for that (see Berkeley DB
> for example).
>
> See this thread:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=20070709011948.GA29281%40mycre.ws
(that's the original Robert's request to the podofo ML.
> If there's something more I need to do in the build system I'm all ears.
> I just didn't hear back after the initial query to the podofo list, and
> assumed there were no further issues.
>
> Looking at the Debian packaging thread it seems to have stalled waiting
> for a response from the person who initially commented about
> "upstream's" soname versioning not being useful/correct.
That must be you Robert?
> Regarding the -dev package, I don't know if there's a pragma I can set
> in the headers as a hint to the linker that it needs to link to a
> particular soname version of podofo or otherwise make sure it gets the
> right one. If something like that isn't done, then if the user has 0.5.0
> and 0.6.0 installed (say) and they're building against 0.5.0 headers
> they'll need to specify the 0.5.0 library for linking explicitly.
>
> Maybe their complaint is related to that? IIRC BDB doesn't rely on
> soname versioning; rather than libdb.4.2.so it's libdb-4.2.so .
>
> If you can find out what they need and what the actual problem is I can
> probably sort it out.
>
> --
> Craig Ringer
Is there any will to get things moving?
Regards,
Alex.
Reply to: