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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]