On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:21:17 +0100
Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I mean, what is bad about the package name glib2? Assuming there will
> >> be a version 2.2, it will be glib2-2.2
> >>
> >> If say 2.4 was binary incompatible, we could make a glib24-2.4
> >> package, however, I strongly doubt that will be necessary - for a
> >> binary compatibility break, they'll go to version 3 I think.
> >
> >According to our shlibs policy, package name should contains it's
> >major version number. It is 0 for glib2 libraries.
> >
> >Probably, gtk peoples will keep compatibility under glib2 and will
> >changes it's name to glib3 if compatiblility breaks. But should we
> >break our policy and make a special naming rule for glib?
>
> No. We don't have to break any rules. The major version is 2, so the
> package should be called "glib2". If it laters turns out that glib
> 2.1 is incompatible, and we want to coexsting packages, we could name
> it glib2-1, but I think this is an extremly unlikely scenario.
Hmm, am I misunderstanding shlibs policy? It says
Each software package for which shared libraries can be built must
have a major version number N. The major version number is only supposed
to change when a backwards-incompatible change in the library's API has
been made.
and
When building shared libraries under major version N, it is important
that the "install_name" of the library be %p/lib/bar.N.dylib. (You can
find the install_name by running otool -L on your library.) The actual
library file should be installed at
%i/lib/bar.N.x.y.dylib
`major version number N' and `major version N' in these sentences have
different meaning?
--
Masanori Sekino
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA008857/
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
