On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 12:29:21AM -0500, Hubert Chan wrote: > > Assuming that I want to publish some at least partially useful > > packages (for a start, much of the use will be via python bindings > > rather than linking against the .so) until upstream has committed to > > an soname policy, and made a stable release, would it be acceptable to > > use experimental for this (ie where the package is otherwise > > policy-clean but doesn't have clean soname bumps during the tracking > > of SVN snapshots) or should I stick to having this in my private > > webspace (and losing autobuilding, bugtracking and other bits and > > pieces of functionality)? > > I believe that packages in experimental must still follow policy, so you > shouldn't use experimental unless you figure out how to handle the > sonames. If use will be limited to the Python bindings, you may be able > to get away with making the C libraries private and sticking them in > /usr/lib/mapnik, at least for now. (And, you would probably skip out on > the -dev package.) > > Otherwise, your options are probably to just use your own private > webspace, or make the library into a static library.
Again, thanks for comments. Actually I could use an soname of libmapnik.so.0d for now (idea from Josselin Mouette's talk that I recently watched the video of :) which I can increment to my heart's content until upstream makes a release with an soname. As I understand it moving from libmapnik.so.0d (package name libmapnik0d) or for that matter libmapnik.so.1d to a future official libmapnik.so.0 shouldn't be a problem should it - the ordering of sonames doesn't matter? Cheers, Dominic. -- Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/ PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
