Hi, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: > > No, definitely not. Doing so would be a RC bug. > > Sorry, but there seems to be some misunderstanding. As this library > obviously has no proper soname, the right fix is to suffix the library > with -<version>. This is how it is written in the policy/debian library > packaging guidelines.
Where? libpkg-guide? (It contains many bad suggestions you get hit with if you do it that way) > > *Unversioned* library. With NO SONAME. API/ABI changes from 5.5.0.10 to > > 5.5.0.13. > > yes then that is why you would need to introduce a new package > liblpsolve-5.5.0.13. Which would change package name on every version :/. Even when ABI/API did *not* change and as such a rename would not be necessary nor useful. I don't think the RMs will want to have one transition where Fortran stuff, OOo etc. will wait for such a package rename.... > > No way. There's a reason it's in its private dir. > > This does not help. When a project requires liblpsolve it still cannot > use it (as abi changes are not dealt with). So you could as well remove ABI changes are not relevant, as you per default link with the static .a (because the .so is not found unless you tell it the dir using -L) Only if you know what you do you should link against the shared liblpsolve55.so Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
