Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
* Daniel Rus Morales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-04 18:28]:
I'd prefer to contact the upstream author and suggest them to use the
current:revision:age schema.
I am afraid this will take much longer than is need for getting the gfortran
transition into lenny. However, it does not cost anything to ask. Would
you be willing to contact the upstream author on this issue?
I will do this, but you are right, it will take more time, so we need
another approach in the meanwhile.
If they were not in the mood, we could start in 0:0:0, and increase only
the revision. The former is the better, the later at least let us to keep
the libraries findable by other packages.
Increasing only the revision will be a big problem if the upstream author
introduces backward-incompatible changes in the API or the ABI. In sum, we
will have to take the burden of updating appropriately the soversion. This
is what I tried to avoid in my proposal. Besides, starting at 0:0:0 is not
a good idea, because we will eventually reach 3:0:2, which will yield
lib*.so.1.2, which will create incompatibilities with the current
libsuitsparse package.
Yes, I agree with you. Your proposal means more work but seems to be the
better way by now.
At this moment I'd consider to split the package in as many libraries as
it has. They share almost anything, and indeed they are available as
separated tarballs. Then suitesparse-X.Y would be a virtual package
which could increase the revision only when the backward compatibility
were broken. This seems to be easier to mantain.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
