On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Paolo Molaro wrote: > On 06/05/01 Michèl Alexandre Salim wrote: > > > Please LART upstream heavily and give the packages a > > > proper name. That > > > tradition has done it wrong is no reason to continue > > > doing it the > > > wrong way.
> The version numbering used upstream is completely reasonable: > check the archives for the discussions, non need to replay them > again. It is not reasonable. The major number of a library should change IFF there is a backwards-incompatible change in the library's binary interface; and the Debian package name should reflect the major number of the library. Any other arrangement, though it may seem 'reasonable' to the library authors, is a disaster for people in the real world who have to work with such libraries from the outside. > > Well this is a bit late :) Following the current > > Debian package names I am calling them libglib1.3, > > libgtk+1.3 since they are not backward-compatible with > > the 1.2 series yet might change prior to version 2.0 > Note that probably all the gtk 1.3.x releases will be incompatible, > so the package names should include also the micro number. If they want to call the upstream package 'gtk 1.3.x' to indicate where in the development cycle they are, that's fine; but the library soname should not be governed by marketing, and upstream /should/ be LARTed for this. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
