On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 11:41:40AM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > I think I have understood you. So, in this case I am showing I don't need > > the > > symlinks of type libfoo.so.X because the SONAME is itself the > > libfoo-x.y.z.so. > > yes. >
Thanks for confirming this. > > > > > If you have something like libfoo-X.so there, then this is not a > > > development symlink, but the SONAME symlink. (so if any doc says > > > .so.X they mean -X.so in that case and if they say .so they mean the > > > real .so file and not the -X.so). > > > > > > > Then, I should provide in the library package _only_ the lib*-x.y.z.so > > files, > > and obviously the *.la and *.so development symlinks into -dev package. > > Please, > > correct me if I am wrong. > > yes. > > Also note that your soname now includes the whole 0.7.5 part, so that > this number should most likely be part of the library package *name*. > (as the -1 seem to have been before). > Yes. I had read that in the Library Packaging Guide. > > Now, packages which depends on this library to build are going to fail with > > this > > change. > > Things that build-depend on this package should most likely still be > build-able with the -dev package installed. (Unless that version changes > something else in comparison to packages already in the archive). > I hope that most of them be able of build with the -dev package installed. But I tried with one that I maintain and it failed. > > It can be said that a library transition has to be done. I'll rebuild > > packages gotten by executing apt-cache rdepends, and contact maintainers. > > If the API did not change, then those packages might only need an > binNMU. > OK. > Also note that as the version in the soname seems to be the whole version > of the library (at least I guess so, as it is as 0.7.5 seems quite > similar to the package upstream version of 0.6.2 in sid), > every future minor upstream release will most likely change the soname and > need a full library transition cycle (and perhaps waiting for NEW and so on). > That is pretty bad, the need of a full library transition cycle for every minor upstream release :( > In other words: Unless you have some LART big enough to get upstream > to switch back to stable ABIs, think twice if you want to keep > maintaining this library or if simply droping it from Debian might be > the better solution. I fear it might be everything but pleasent to deal with > this all the time. > I think I lean more for trying first to talk to upstream about this. Not sure if I will succeed in this, either. > If you keep maintaining it, I'd also suggest asking the release team for > advice (as they will have to deal with those transitions). Ideally after > squeeze release, though. > OK. Yes, I was thinking in uploading this after squeeze is released to not interfere with the process of releasing. Thank you very much for your help. -- Muammar El Khatib. Linux user: 403107. Key fingerprint = 90B8 BFC4 4A75 B881 39A3 1440 30EB 403B 1270 29F1 http://muammar.me | http://proyectociencia.org ,''`. : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110106115508.ga24...@prank.debian.org