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

Bug#476284: Bullet

Hello Vincent,

On 16.01.2013 22:50, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
>   Hello,
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Markus Koschany <apo@gambaru.de> wrote:
>> Bullet's SONAME matches the release version hence i have named the
>> packages libbulletcollision2.81 and so on. I think we can expect a
>> different SONAME every new release. What is the best approach to find a
>> sane versioning scheme here?
>   This is not necessarily great news here. There are two reasons why
> upstream use that naming scheme:
>   * the first and unfortunately least likely is that upstream isn't
> too knowledgeable about SONAME and binary compatibility, in which case
> pointing them nicely at
> http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Release-numbers.html#Release-numbers
> could help them to change their view on the subject. (I had another
> better documentation in mind, but I can't find it anymore).
>  * if that is not the case and the reason why upstream chose to use
> the version as SONAME is that they don't care about binary
> compatibility between releases. If that is true, then it means a
> transition for EVERY new upstream release. The release team won't like
> that so much...
>   In both cases, a discussion must occur with upstream to know what is
> their policy about binary compatibility.

Upstream does provide an option to build shared libraries so i would not
claim nobody cares about this use case. On the other hand i have seen
Erwin Coumans, main developer and project leader of Bullet, stating many
times that Bullet is designed as a static library.
The Debian Policy also does not rule out using static libraries for some
use cases. These cases include:

8.3 "libraries which are explicitly intended to be available only in
static form by their upstream author(s)"

The main question is how many packages in Debian can benefit more from
Bullet in static form or as a shared library? My intention was to
continue the work from four years ago and to provide shared libraries
but i'm open for everything, if we can agree on something else.

I expect two releases of Bullet per year and major breakage when Bullet
introduces version 3. But i have absolutely no empirical values how
Bullet and all packages which depend on it will behave between two



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: