On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:08:13PM +0200, Erik Lundin wrote: > > I think it is better to use original upstream sonames, for compatibility > > with > > third-party applications built against upstream versions. > > > > The Debian package name should usually be based only on the major part of > > soname, but as there is a clear ABI break here for Qt 5 switch, I think you > > may keep the current naming scheme and name the package libpythonqt3.1. > > Isn't an argument for renamed .so files that this breaking ABI change would > require the major version to change? I built an application against PythonQt > today, and it was linked against libPythonQt.so.3, so it obviously cared > about the major version. For that reason I patched the project files to > produce the targets libPythonQt5.so.3.1.0 etc. The package could then be > called libpythonqt-qt5-3. The problem is as you say that the project by > default doesn't name the Qt 5 libraries differently. Maybe something that I > should try to get fixed upstream?
Yes, the soname is something to consider for upstream. If we think upstream made an ABI break, we usually do not patch the soname, but instead rename the package, i.e. append a prefix (“a” or “v5”). -- Dmitry Shachnev
Description: PGP signature