Oleksandr Moskalenko wrote: > 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. hi, when I looked into packaging podofo a while ago I was concerned about the lack of stable SONAMEs, but it seems the frequency of releases has dropped off, so my concerns may have been unfounded. I'm not willing to package podofo until it has a stable API; if you'd like to package it you're welcome to take the ITP bug. -- Robert Edmonds edmonds@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature