On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 03:44:32PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 04:04:11PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > This suggests that one ought to increase the version in the shlibs file > > each time the ABI is changed, but not change it otherwise. > > > > So is "dh_makeshlibs -V" (i.e. bump the version uncondtionally) simply > > the lazy-man's way of doing this? > > Yes. More kindly phrased, it's the conservative option; it always > ensures that other packages' shared library dependencies are at least as > tight as they need to be, so that if the maintainer screws up then they > won't break. The flip side is that packages might end up with > dependencies that are too tight and so find it harder to be upgraded in > testing: GNOME packages used to have this problem until the gnome-core > maintainer started generating a more accurate shlibs file. > > Joey, perhaps dh_makeshlibs(1) could have a note in its man page saying > something like this?
I agree it would be nice if dh_makeshlibs had a note explaining what you did about the -V option. I also think it would be nice to have a note somewhere that the optional version field is useful for changes in the library ABI. Would the policy manual section on "shlibs" (either 9.1 or 9.4) be a suitable place for that? -Steve -- by Rocket to the Moon, by Airplane to the Rocket, by Taxi to the Airport, by Frontdoor to the Taxi, by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ... - They Might Be Giants