Thomas Jarosch wrote: > Hi there, > > I've taken a close look at possible clashes > in parallel installation of libftdi 0.x and 1.x. > > Here's the current situation of libftdi 0.18 on Fedora 15: > ------------------------------------------------------------ > /etc/udev/rules.d/99-libftdi.rules > /usr/lib64/libftdi.so.1 > /usr/lib64/libftdi.so.1.18.0 > /usr/share/doc/libftdi-0.18/AUTHOS > /usr/share/doc/libftdi-0.18/COPYING.LIB > /usr/share/doc/libftdi-0.18/xxx > /usr/bin/libftdi-config > /usr/include/ftdi.h > /usr/lib64/libftdi.so > /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libftdi.pc > /usr/share/doc/libftdi-devel-0.18 > /usr/share/doc/libftdi-devel-0.18/html > /usr/share/doc/libftdi-devel-0.18/html/xxx > /usr/share/man/man3/Ftdi.3.gz > /usr/share/man/man3/Ftdi_Context.3.gz > ... > /usr/share/man/man3/ftdi_device_list.3.gz > /usr/share/man/man3/ftdi_eeprom.3.gz > /usr/share/man/man3/libftdi.3.gz > /usr/share/man/man3/usb_dev_handle.3.gz > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > A parallel installation of libftdi 1.x gives the following trouble: > ------------------------------------------------------------ > - .so library name clash -> soversion already bumped to 2.x > - libftdi-config name clash > - ftdi.h name clash > - pkgconfig filename clash: libftdi.pc > - man pages name clashes > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > I propose the following changes for libftdi 1.x > ------------------------------------------------------------ > - libftdi-config -> libftdi-1.0-config > - ftdi.h -> /usr/include/ftdi-1.0.h > - libftdi.pc -> libftdi-1.0.pc (pkgconfig file). Also "libftdipp-1.0.pc" > - we can't do much about possible man page clashes. > You can't prefix them in doxygen, just redirect > the output to a non-default directory > - Rename "libftdi.spec" to "libftdi-1.0.spec" > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Now the big question: Should we also change the library name to "libftdi-1.0"? > IMHO it's a good idea since broken linker flags might point to the previous > libftdi 0.1 and result in very bogus error messages. > > The "-X.0" suffix is used by several projects like libxml2 or glib2. > It will stay at "-1.0" if we increase the official version f.e. to 1.5. > I'm not fixed on the "-X.0", I just want -any- suffix to be in there. > We could also go for "libftdi1" instead of "libftdi-1.0". > > Distributions could also offer a "libftdi1-compat" package which > provides symbolic links from the libftdi 0.x file locations to 1.x > if libftdi-devel from 0.x is not installed in parallel. > The APIs should be mostly compatible. > > > Opinions? Better ideas?
Can you remind us why we can't just dump libftdi 0.x for good and avoid all of this? -jim -- libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details. To unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
