On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Stefan van der Eijk wrote:
> >No, the one in /usr/lib is a link to the one in /lib, but they are not
> >the same files, but that isn't relevant. But why is there no libdb-3.so
> >file (if we are going to go with the naming used for libdb40).
> >
> >
> >
> >>What's the problem exactly?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The fact that the versioned library file doesn't have it's version
> >trailing the .so.
> >
> Yes.
So what should happen if a package has a build requirement on a specific
version of a library (e.g. libfoo.so.1.0.7)? Or is this impossible unless
a versioning scheme like with db3 & db4 is used? If it should work you're
right to want different dependency names.
> >Stefan, I think the problem isn't the naming of the requirements,
> >
> Well, you can't disagree that using the ".so" is at least confusing.
> It's very difficult to tell where it came from.
>
> If we would change the naming, then even _if_ packaging is incorrect, it
> wouldn't fool the system --> and that's one of my main motivations to
> change the naming.
>
> >it's the method. We shouldn't be chopping off the bit that follows .so, we
> >should be finding the file that links to the library listed.
> >
> I don't follow you here...
For a regular dependendy to libdb-4.0.so one might expect a -devel
dependency on libdb-4.so, or even libdb.so. Note that libtool doesn't get
this right either (or does it use the same code?), judging from
/usr/lib/libdb-4.0.la:
library_names='libdb-4.0.so libdb-4.0.so libdb-4.0.so'
At least, I would expect it to be:
library_names='libdb-4.0.so libdb-4.so libdb.so'
Christiaan
