Package version numbers in names

[Evan]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Scott James Remnant <scott at ubuntu.com>wrote:

> 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
>

Again, thank you so much for clarifying.

I will email the maintainer of the package which prompted these questions
and see what turns up.

Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20100310/914869bf/attachment.html>