[My apologies in advance for the cross-posting.] On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:42:36AM +0100, Daniel Wallin wrote: > Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > >> > > So, I've been trying to build the Debian package with the latest from > > the 0.8 branch on github. It seems like the SONAME thing is not > > completely resolved. I am seeing this after building: > > > > robe...@miami:~/src/luabind-upstream$ objdump -p > > ./bin/gcc-4.3.2/debug/libluabindd.so.0.8.0 |grep SONAME > > SONAME libluabindd.so.0.8.0 > > Yes, that's the expected result, isn't it? The reasoning was that it's > too difficult to have ABI-compatibility, so we just use the complete > version number as the SONAME. "bjam install" will create the unversioned > symlink. >
I am curious as to what people generally think of how the libluabind SONAME will be going forward. I know that certain packages (like libssl) have the complete version in the SONAME, but I can't imagine that this is a really good idea. Is this a showstopper for having libluabind in Debian, or just for a stable release? Is this discouraged, but otherwise permissible? I've looked in the Debian library packaging guide and it does not say one way or the other. I'd appreciate any insights and/or comments. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
