On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 04:04:11PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 01:22:32PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Version 2.1.1 of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close. Version 2.1.2
of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close, and foo_read. This doesn't
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 12:09:39PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
DA == Domenico Andreoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
So is dh_makeshlibs -V (i.e. bump the version uncondtionally) simply
the lazy-man's way of doing this?
best solution INHO is to write .shlibs file by hand
DA == Domenico Andreoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
This is a file to edit and some maintainer forget that.
you don't have to edit it all the time, only when your ABI changes :)
Yes, but see libgal or gtkhtml.
A line like this in debian/rules is better IMHO.
dh_makeshlibs
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 04:04:11PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 01:22:32PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Version 2.1.1 of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close. Version
2.1.2
of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close, and foo_read. This
DA == Domenico Andreoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
So is dh_makeshlibs -V (i.e. bump the version uncondtionally) simply
the lazy-man's way of doing this?
best solution INHO is to write .shlibs file by hand and update minimum
version required every time you understand ABI is changing.
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 12:09:39PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
DA == Domenico Andreoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
So is dh_makeshlibs -V (i.e. bump the version uncondtionally) simply
the lazy-man's way of doing this?
best solution INHO is to write .shlibs file by hand and
DA == Domenico Andreoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
This is a file to edit and some maintainer forget that.
you don't have to edit it all the time, only when your ABI changes :)
Yes, but see libgal or gtkhtml.
A line like this in debian/rules is better IMHO.
dh_makeshlibs
Hello,
Suppose I have a package that produces a shared lib. Debian policy
9.1 says I need to create a shlibs file. No problem;
dh_makeshlibs does exactly this.
Now, the shlibs file can optionally have version info in it.
Why would I want to put version info in there?
One case that
On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Suppose I have a package that produces a shared lib. Debian policy
9.1 says I need to create a shlibs file. No problem;
dh_makeshlibs does exactly this.
Now, the shlibs file can optionally have version info in it.
Why would I want to put
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 01:22:32PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Version 2.1.1 of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close. Version 2.1.2
of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close, and foo_read. This doesn't
break the ABI; foo_open and foo_close have not changed, so there's no
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 03:44:32PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 04:04:11PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
This suggests that one ought to increase the version in the shlibs file
each time the ABI is changed, but not change it otherwise.
So is dh_makeshlibs -V (i.e.
On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Suppose I have a package that produces a shared lib. Debian policy
9.1 says I need to create a shlibs file. No problem;
dh_makeshlibs does exactly this.
Now, the shlibs file can optionally have version info in it.
Why would I want to put version
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 01:22:32PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Version 2.1.1 of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close. Version 2.1.2
of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close, and foo_read. This doesn't
break the ABI; foo_open and foo_close have not changed, so there's no
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 04:04:11PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
This suggests that one ought to increase the version in the shlibs file
each time the ABI is changed, but not change it otherwise.
So is dh_makeshlibs -V (i.e. bump the version uncondtionally) simply
the lazy-man's way of
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 03:44:32PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 04:04:11PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
This suggests that one ought to increase the version in the shlibs file
each time the ABI is changed, but not change it otherwise.
So is dh_makeshlibs -V (i.e.
15 matches
Mail list logo
