Hello,
Suppose I have a package that produces a shared lib. Debian policy
9.1 says I need to create a "shlibs" file. No problem;
"dh_makeshlibs" does exactly this.
Now, the "shlibs" file can optionally have version info in it.
Why would I want to put version info in there?
One case that immedi
Hello,
Suppose I have a package that produces a shared lib. Debian policy
9.1 says I need to create a "shlibs" file. No problem;
"dh_makeshlibs" does exactly this.
Now, the "shlibs" file can optionally have version info in it.
Why would I want to put version info in there?
One case that immed
On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Suppose I have a package that produces a shared lib. Debian policy
> 9.1 says I need to create a "shlibs" file. No problem;
> "dh_makeshlibs" does exactly this.
> Now, the "shlibs" file can optionally have version info in it.
> Why would I want to p
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 01:22:32PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Version 2.1.1 of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close. Version 2.1.2
> of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close, and foo_read. This doesn't
> break the ABI; foo_open and foo_close have not changed, so there's no n
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 o
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
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 04:04:11PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 01:22:32PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Version 2.1.1 of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close. Version
> > 2.1.2
> > of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close, and foo_read. This
>
"DA" == Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> So is "dh_makeshlibs -V" (i.e. bump the version uncondtionally) simply
>> the lazy-man's way of doing this?
>>
> best solution INHO is to write .shlibs file by hand and update minimum
> version required every time you understand
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 12:09:39PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> "DA" == Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >> So is "dh_makeshlibs -V" (i.e. bump the version uncondtionally) simply
> >> the lazy-man's way of doing this?
> >>
> > best solution INHO is to write
"DA" == Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> This is a file to edit and some maintainer forget that.
>>
> you don't have to edit it all the time, only when your ABI changes :)
Yes, but see libgal or gtkhtml.
>> A line like this in debian/rules is better IMHO.
>>
>> dh_m
On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Suppose I have a package that produces a shared lib. Debian policy
> 9.1 says I need to create a "shlibs" file. No problem;
> "dh_makeshlibs" does exactly this.
> Now, the "shlibs" file can optionally have version info in it.
> Why would I want to
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 01:22:32PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Version 2.1.1 of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close. Version 2.1.2
> of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close, and foo_read. This doesn't
> break the ABI; foo_open and foo_close have not changed, so there's no
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
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 04:04:11PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 01:22:32PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Version 2.1.1 of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close. Version 2.1.2
> > of libfoo provides functions foo_open, foo_close, and foo_read. This doesn'
"DA" == Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> So is "dh_makeshlibs -V" (i.e. bump the version uncondtionally) simply
>> the lazy-man's way of doing this?
>>
> best solution INHO is to write .shlibs file by hand and update minimum
> version required every time you understan
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 12:09:39PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> "DA" == Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >> So is "dh_makeshlibs -V" (i.e. bump the version uncondtionally) simply
> >> the lazy-man's way of doing this?
> >>
> > best solution INHO is to write
"DA" == Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> This is a file to edit and some maintainer forget that.
>>
> you don't have to edit it all the time, only when your ABI changes :)
Yes, but see libgal or gtkhtml.
>> A line like this in debian/rules is better IMHO.
>>
>> dh_
17 matches
Mail list logo
