Then after each release you one need to make a diff over all headers and create also symbols-files to be sure that the ABI is not broken.
Anton 2018-03-04 1:18 GMT+01:00 Kurt Kremitzki <kkremit...@gmail.com>: > > > On 03/03/2018 04:12 PM, Anton Gladky wrote: >> >> 2018-03-01 5:32 GMT+01:00 Kurt Kremitzki <kkremit...@gmail.com>: >> <skip> >>> >>> To summarize: >>> 1. When the OCC was in Debian previously, and its current form in the >>> Ubuntu >>> PPA, we had e.g. libopencascade-foundation-7.1.0 >>> 2. Anton suggested e.g. libopencascade-foundation-7.2 >>> 3. Appendix A of the Debian New Maintainer's Guide [1] suggests >>> libopencascade-foundation7 is correct >>> 4. Some packages also use the form libopencascade7-foundation, and this >>> seems most correct to me >>> >>> But which one should be used here? In the case of 4, would the -dev files >>> just be e.g. libopencascade-foundation-dev? or libopencascade7-*-dev? >> >> </skip> >> >> Well it depends. If upstream guarantees the stable API/ABI between minor >> releases, that it is OK to have libopencascade-foundation-7. But to be on >> the safe side, I think it is better to use libX,Y.Z-schema. >> >> Anton >> > > They do use a major.minor.maintenance version scheme so perhaps the .Z > portion would be unnecessary.
