Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] debian: sync with 2.5.2-2 from debian.org,
On 05/04/2010 08:11 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: What I meant is that we could artificially increment the library ABI version, so that we get in-line with the package name. Of course, we pretend we broke the ABI whereas we did not really do it, but it looks harmless (but is it really?). Just change it for the next ABI changes. No actions really required, currently. bye, Roland ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] debian: sync with 2.5.2-2 from debian.org,
Am 03.05.2010 20:46, schrieb Gilles Chanteperdrix: Stefan Kisdaroczi wrote: Hi Philippe, Roland Stigge has accepted the group xenomai patch and uploaded xenomai 2.5.2-2 to debian unstable. I have attached a patch against rpm/for-upstream to sync up with 2.5.2-2. Please ignore other patches I sent earlier, the attached patch contains them. Thanks. Reading your patch, maybe libxenomai.so.0 should be called libxenomai.so.1 ? The comment in the libxenomai1.lintian hunk was added by Roland, so it's probably better to ask him. Roland, what do you think ? Stefan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] debian: sync with 2.5.2-2 from debian.org,
Roland Stigge wrote: Hi, On 05/04/2010 09:43 AM, Stefan Kisdaroczi wrote: Reading your patch, maybe libxenomai.so.0 should be called libxenomai.so.1 ? The comment in the libxenomai1.lintian hunk was added by Roland, so it's probably better to ask him. Roland, what do you think ? The comment resulted from the discrepancy between the Debian package name libxenomai1 and the SO version of libxenomai.so.0. When there was no libxenomai.so, yet, I called the Debian package with all the *.so.* libxenomai1 by convention. I won't rename it to libxenomai0 because: (1) I won't downgrade the version encoded in the package name (2) There are other SOs in the package which have their own SO versions, even though all or most of them also have 0. I propose keeping number as they are for now. Everything is working fine currently. I just propose to stick to correct library SO versioning. See also http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html which is the Debian perspective on the issue but it gives a good practical introduction to the topic. When SO versions change in the correct way (e.g. major SO version increments on ABI changes), I will update the package version as well. Yes, right, now that we made libxenomai a shared library, we can not really consider it an internal library any more, we have to take care of incrementing the version when we change the ABI, which we have not done yet. My previous informationn on library versioning was this: http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/autobook/autobook_91.html#SEC91 What I meant is that we could artificially increment the library ABI version, so that we get in-line with the package name. Of course, we pretend we broke the ABI whereas we did not really do it, but it looks harmless (but is it really?). -- Gilles. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] debian: sync with 2.5.2-2 from debian.org,
Stefan Kisdaroczi wrote: Hi Philippe, Roland Stigge has accepted the group xenomai patch and uploaded xenomai 2.5.2-2 to debian unstable. I have attached a patch against rpm/for-upstream to sync up with 2.5.2-2. Please ignore other patches I sent earlier, the attached patch contains them. Thanks. Reading your patch, maybe libxenomai.so.0 should be called libxenomai.so.1 ? -- Gilles. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
