Hi, Mikael Magnusson wrote: > I choose to name them libportaudio0[-dev] and libportaudio19-0[-dev] > with libportaudio0 and libportaudio19-0 as SONAMEs respectively, and I > think my naming scheme has an advantages. If portaudio v19 when release > is backward compatible with v18, then libportaudio19-0[-dev] can be > renamed to libportaudio0[-dev].
I just did a diff between portaudio v18.1 and the CVS anspshot I packaged. They renamed functions (removing the old ones): e.g. PaQueryDevice -> PaOSS_QueryDevice. And AFAIS function signatures, too. So v18 and v19 *are* ABI-incompatible (which also alreyd was implied of the API changes, see above). So you *need* to do a split completely and this means also wrt SONAMEs, v19 will not be compatible with pplications written for/linked against v18. > According to the first paragraph in Debian Policy Manual section 10.2 > "Libraries", you must compile all source twice. Isn't this required > anymore, as I can't see this happen in your package? Well... I never saw bad implications of static libraries built with -fPIC, contrary I saw that this is good since some applications/other dynamic libraries wanting to link against portaudio will not fail. Some arch require -fPIC for linking into a (dynamic) app and dynamic librar
