Bug#431809: News (and proposal)
The following are excerpts from a message by a lead PoDoFo developer who is very willing to help Debian podofo packaging. PoDoFo's SONAME for release versions is the version number, eg 0.5.0 . Each release breaks binary and source compatibility and will continue to do so until 1.0, but the soname versioning permits different versions of the library to coexist. The -dev packages will have to be muturally exclusive (as the APIs are incompatible), but there's plenty of precedent for that (see Berkeley DB for example). See this thread: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=20070709011948.GA29281%40mycre.ws (that's the original Robert's request to the podofo ML. If there's something more I need to do in the build system I'm all ears. I just didn't hear back after the initial query to the podofo list, and assumed there were no further issues. Looking at the Debian packaging thread it seems to have stalled waiting for a response from the person who initially commented about upstream's soname versioning not being useful/correct. That must be you Robert? Regarding the -dev package, I don't know if there's a pragma I can set in the headers as a hint to the linker that it needs to link to a particular soname version of podofo or otherwise make sure it gets the right one. If something like that isn't done, then if the user has 0.5.0 and 0.6.0 installed (say) and they're building against 0.5.0 headers they'll need to specify the 0.5.0 library for linking explicitly. Maybe their complaint is related to that? IIRC BDB doesn't rely on soname versioning; rather than libdb.4.2.so it's libdb-4.2.so . If you can find out what they need and what the actual problem is I can probably sort it out. -- Craig Ringer Is there any will to get things moving? Regards, Alex. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#431809: News (and proposal)
Oleksandr Moskalenko wrote: The following are excerpts from a message by a lead PoDoFo developer who is very willing to help Debian podofo packaging. PoDoFo's SONAME for release versions is the version number, eg 0.5.0 . Each release breaks binary and source compatibility and will continue to do so until 1.0, but the soname versioning permits different versions of the library to coexist. The -dev packages will have to be muturally exclusive (as the APIs are incompatible), but there's plenty of precedent for that (see Berkeley DB for example). See this thread: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=20070709011948.GA29281%40mycre.ws (that's the original Robert's request to the podofo ML. If there's something more I need to do in the build system I'm all ears. I just didn't hear back after the initial query to the podofo list, and assumed there were no further issues. Looking at the Debian packaging thread it seems to have stalled waiting for a response from the person who initially commented about upstream's soname versioning not being useful/correct. That must be you Robert? Regarding the -dev package, I don't know if there's a pragma I can set in the headers as a hint to the linker that it needs to link to a particular soname version of podofo or otherwise make sure it gets the right one. If something like that isn't done, then if the user has 0.5.0 and 0.6.0 installed (say) and they're building against 0.5.0 headers they'll need to specify the 0.5.0 library for linking explicitly. Maybe their complaint is related to that? IIRC BDB doesn't rely on soname versioning; rather than libdb.4.2.so it's libdb-4.2.so . If you can find out what they need and what the actual problem is I can probably sort it out. -- Craig Ringer Is there any will to get things moving? Regards, Alex. hi, when I looked into packaging podofo a while ago I was concerned about the lack of stable SONAMEs, but it seems the frequency of releases has dropped off, so my concerns may have been unfounded. I'm not willing to package podofo until it has a stable API; if you'd like to package it you're welcome to take the ITP bug. -- Robert Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#431809: News (and proposal)
Alle lunedì 14 gennaio 2008, Robert Edmonds ha scritto: Pino Toscano wrote: It looks like the podofo developers change the SONAME to be like the release number; in Debian there are other libraries with the same behaviour from upstream (eg, poppler) no, poppler uses -version-info. Ok, bad example. Boost then, or libpt? Then both have libraries with full major.minor.patch release number in the SONAME... -- Pino Toscano signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#431809: News (and proposal)
Hi! I saw this interesting ITP, but with no news after it was posted. Is there any news? If not, I would like to take this ITP (and package podofobrowser as well, but that should belong to another ITP, I guess). -- Pino Toscano signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#431809: News (and proposal)
Pino Toscano wrote: I saw this interesting ITP, but with no news after it was posted. Is there any news? If not, I would like to take this ITP (and package podofobrowser as well, but that should belong to another ITP, I guess). the podofo library will not be packaged until upstream has a stable SONAME. -- Robert Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#431809: News (and proposal)
Alle lunedì 14 gennaio 2008, Robert Edmonds ha scritto: Pino Toscano wrote: I saw this interesting ITP, but with no news after it was posted. Is there any news? If not, I would like to take this ITP (and package podofobrowser as well, but that should belong to another ITP, I guess). the podofo library will not be packaged until upstream has a stable SONAME. It looks like the podofo developers change the SONAME to be like the release number; in Debian there are other libraries with the same behaviour from upstream (eg, poppler), so I don't see why it couldn't be packaged as libpodofo-0.5, for example... -- Pino Toscano signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#431809: News (and proposal)
Pino Toscano wrote: It looks like the podofo developers change the SONAME to be like the release number; in Debian there are other libraries with the same behaviour from upstream (eg, poppler) no, poppler uses -version-info. -- Robert Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
