[Pkg-crosswire-devel] API/ABI compatibility, and choice of SONAME for libsword

[Дмитрий Ледков]

Jonathan Marsden wrote:
>> I can't see it being a problem as it has been ok the last 8 years
>> uploading new libswordx packages. The worst I can see happening is
>> that the name is rejected and we have to go back to libsword7 ...
> 
>> I have no objection to the package name be libsword-1.5.11 and SONAME
>> being libsword-1.5.11.so as long as there is no way it can break upgrades.
> 
> I'd rather do what the guide says and stick with libsword7 next, but I
> suspect either way will work at a technical level, so as long as you are
> right about it being OK to put the whole 1.5.11 version into the package
> name, I think we could do it.
> 
>> As is says in the Debian Library Packaging guide: 'It is quite
>> important that Debian does not lose binary compatibility with other
>> distributions, so changing the SONAME specifically for Debian is
>> generally a bad idea. Discuss and convince the upstream to use a saner
>> method for determining the SONAMEs.'
>>
>> I hadn't thought of that before, so yes, we do need agreement with
>> what works upstream and what works within Debian/Ubuntu.
> 
> Since in reality Debian/Ubuntu are the only distributions that I know of

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=51428

Seems like they are doing it, for quite a while.....

> currently officially packaging this code, and since they have a lengthy
> history (back to 1999, I think!) of using -version-info and a sequence
> of small integers the last of which is 6, (rather than -release
> $(VERSION) ), I see no reason to break from tradition here.  Maybe, once

Can't find reference now, but I think the Policy mentions that even
though your so name is libfoo7-1.X.Y.so you still create a symlink
libfoo-1.X.Y.so for linkers and others.

> we have this all done for Debian and Ubuntu, someone among us will get
> brave and attempt to get equivalent RPM packages into Fedora and
> OpenSuSe and Mandriva or something... but then they are following the
> lead we are setting here... there is no *current* issue with binary
> compatibility with packages in other distributions.
> 
> We have other work to do, and only a few weeks to do it... so my
> suggestion is to leave this the way it has been in Debian for years, and
> use libsword7 as the name and -version-info 7 in the build script,

I agree with this. Let's make a working package, then debate how to call
it. Plus transition won't affect anyone else outside of this team.

> *unless* we can have the dialogue with the upstream deveopers that the
> Library Packaging Guide recommends, *and* such dialogue is likely to get
> us a rapid and positive result.
> 
> Jonathan

-- Dima.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-crosswire-devel/attachments/20090124/0f757dd2/attachment.sig>