Hi,
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>>> Too, there are actually two forms of library soname file naming used:
>>> libfoo.so.1.2.3
>>> and
>>> libfoo-1.2.3.so
>> Only the first one is mentioned in the various packaging guides,
>
> hmmm ? excluding this?
>
> http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#shldevpackagecontents
Right; I should read the documents I refer to more carefully ;)
>> so I suppose that the format libfoo-1.2.3.so only exists for historical
>> reasons, right? IMHO new packages have to use the form libfoo.so.1.2.3 ?
>
> That's not quite the case.
Yes, Steve already said that; so, if I understand it correctly, none of
the two formats is preferred over the other one, i.e. if upstream
uses either of them, both would be valid for Debian, right?
Thanks,
Andreas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
