On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 08:46:59AM +0100, Andreas Fester wrote: > 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? I couldn't find it (or would have mentioned it), but dpkg-shlibdeps (I believe) used to contain a comment to the effect that the libfoo-1.2.3.so-style sonames were not to be encouraged. This might have just been a Debian interpretation resulting from some (hypothetical) bug report from maintainers of a package using that style (or something).
Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
