Package version numbers in names

[Scott James Remnant]

On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:55 -0500, Evan wrote:

> Thank you so much for clarifying, that makes more sense.
> Now let's throw symlinks into the mix :)
> 
> Suppose libexample is at version 1.0 upstream.
> The previous version was version 0.5.
> The current package is named libexample0.5
> It has a version field of 1.0
> 
This would not be compliant with policy.

The current package would be named libexample0 and have a version field
of 1.0 - the symlink would be libexample.so.0 -> libexample.so.0.5.x

> It installs libexample.so.1.0
> It also installs the symlink libexample.so.0.5 -> libexample.so.1.0
> 
This would be a violation of policy.

The symlink would be libexample.so.1 -> libexample.so.1.0.x and if
packaged, this would be libexample1


These would not conflict.

> Now as I see it the problem exists in one of two places:
> Either upstream misincremented the major version number
> (without changing the API/ABI), or it has been mispackaged.
> 
Neither.

It's perfectly valid for a package's version number and SONAME to be out
of sync.  One is the upstream version of a package, the other is the
library ABI/API version.

The poster child example here is glibc 2.x, which has a SONAME of
libc.so.6

Scott
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott at ubuntu.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20100310/c377b151/attachment.sig>