On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 09:09:10PM -0700, Tom Lee wrote:
> By and large that's an easy & mostly mechanical change, but both
> libhiredis0.10 and libhiredis0.13 want to install the libhiredis.so.0
> symlink (each pointing to one of libhiredis.so.0.{10,13}).
From the upstream perspective this looks like misunderstanding: this
symlink shouldn't exist when the SONAME looks like "libhiredis.so.0.10"
which is the case here.
From the Debian perspective this violates Policy 8.2.> I *think* what I want to do based on > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-replaces is > to add the following to debian/control for libhiredis0.13: > > Replaces: libhiredis0.10 > Breaks: libhiredis0.10 This defeats the purpose of shared library package design used in Debian. > Is this the right way to handle the situation, or is there a better way to > do this? Ideally you should find out whether $(DYLIB_MAJOR_NAME) is really useful to anyone and if it isn't convince upstream to drop it. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
