two packages I wish some eyeballs on

Hello, I asked my sponsor (Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about a week ago, haven't heard from him yet. I have two packages I would like to have checked out. Both are at (or ferret.dyndns.org for those who still use ICANN nameservers). Lintian o

two packages I wish some eyeballs on

Hello, I asked my sponsor (Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about a week ago, haven't heard from him yet. I have two packages I would like to have checked out. Both are at (or ferret.dyndns.org for those who still use ICANN nameservers). Lintian

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 06:18:04PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > I think the confusion here is between a SONAME and a library version number. > Typically, the library version number is part of the SONAME. What we are > speaking of here is libraries which do not have a version number in their > S

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 05:06:58PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > 1. Does Debian require a SONAME for a shared lib? > > > > You mean the tag inside the library itself? > > Yes. > > > All of the shared libraries I have installed on my machine have an > > embedded SONAME tag. I thought t

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 05:16:31PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:50:47PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > > So I guess I'm still searching for the answer to my original questions: > > > > > 1. Does Debian require a

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:50:47PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > So I guess I'm still searching for the answer to my original questions: > > > 1. Does Debian require a SONAME for a shared lib?

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

> I could arbitrarily start with SONAME libInventor.so.0, and fix up the > packaging with an epoch if I get stuck later. Or, since the source > version is 2.something, I could start with SONAME libInventor.so.2. > Or is the correct approach to just embed the entire source version > in the SONAME,

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:50:47PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > So I guess I'm still searching for the answer to my original questions: > > > 1. Does Debian require a SONAME for a shared lib? > > Yes, although this may not be spelled out clear

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 04:41:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > That is a nice, rational versioning scheme, I agree. > > > > I don't see how it fits in this discussion, though. For one thing, > > I'm not using libtool. > > But all shared libraries are recommended to follow this convention

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

Hi Steve, On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > I thought a "SONAME" was something embedded into the shared object > > > file. As I understand things, the SONAME is completely independent of > > > the file name, at least in principle. > > It's not quite that simple. > > There's a

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

> That is a nice, rational versioning scheme, I agree. > > I don't see how it fits in this discussion, though. For one thing, > I'm not using libtool. But all shared libraries are recommended to follow this convention. > So I guess I'm still searching for the answer to my original questions: >

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:18:56PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Yes, but "SONAME" just means the name of the .so file. > > > > OK, now I'm truly confused. > > > > I thought a "SONAME" was something embedded into the shared object > > file. As I understand things, the SONAME is completel

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 06:18:04PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > I think the confusion here is between a SONAME and a library version number. > Typically, the library version number is part of the SONAME. What we are > speaking of here is libraries which do not have a version number in their >

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 05:06:58PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > 1. Does Debian require a SONAME for a shared lib? > > > > You mean the tag inside the library itself? > > Yes. > > > All of the shared libraries I have installed on my machine have an > > embedded SONAME tag. I thought

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 05:16:31PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:50:47PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > > So I guess I'm still searching for the answer to my original questions: > > > > > 1. Does Debian require

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:50:47PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > So I guess I'm still searching for the answer to my original questions: > > > 1. Does Debian require a SONAME for a shared lib?

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

> I could arbitrarily start with SONAME libInventor.so.0, and fix up the > packaging with an epoch if I get stuck later. Or, since the source > version is 2.something, I could start with SONAME libInventor.so.2. > Or is the correct approach to just embed the entire source version > in the SONAME,

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 02:30:49PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm under the impression that any shared library *must* have > > a SONAME. > > Yes, but "SONAME" just means the name of the .so file. OK, now I'm truly confused. I thought a "SONAME" was something embedded into the shared obj

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

> > Yes, but "SONAME" just means the name of the .so file. > > OK, now I'm truly confused. > > I thought a "SONAME" was something embedded into the shared object > file. As I understand things, the SONAME is completely independent of > the file name, at least in principle. It's not quite that s

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:50:47PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > So I guess I'm still searching for the answer to my original questions: > > > 1. Does Debian require a SONAME for a shared lib? > > Yes, although this may not be spelled out clea

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 04:41:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > That is a nice, rational versioning scheme, I agree. > > > > I don't see how it fits in this discussion, though. For one thing, > > I'm not using libtool. > > But all shared libraries are recommended to follow this conventio

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

> I'm under the impression that any shared library *must* have > a SONAME. Yes, but "SONAME" just means the name of the .so file. Policy uses this term incorrectly to refer to the extension of the soname. Saying that a shared library must have a SONAME is then equivalent to saying that it must ha

Re: About NM, email and spam

On 01-07-25 Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 01:55:34AM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: > > I got two already to my home email and one through my debian.org > > address, all from different people. Now it's funny to see just how far > > this one is spread already (I never got that many v

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

Hi Steve, On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > I thought a "SONAME" was something embedded into the shared object > > > file. As I understand things, the SONAME is completely independent of > > > the file name, at least in principle. > > It's not quite that simple. > > There's a

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

> That is a nice, rational versioning scheme, I agree. > > I don't see how it fits in this discussion, though. For one thing, > I'm not using libtool. But all shared libraries are recommended to follow this convention. > So I guess I'm still searching for the answer to my original questions: >

upstream library without a SONAME

Hi, I'm under the impression that any shared library *must* have a SONAME. I can't find that precise statement in the policy manual, but section 11.3 says the package must be named "librarynamesoversion". If true, what is the procedure for packaging, say Inventor, that builds two shared libs wit

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:18:56PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Yes, but "SONAME" just means the name of the .so file. > > > > OK, now I'm truly confused. > > > > I thought a "SONAME" was something embedded into the shared object > > file. As I understand things, the SONAME is complete

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

> > Yes, but "SONAME" just means the name of the .so file. > > OK, now I'm truly confused. > > I thought a "SONAME" was something embedded into the shared object > file. As I understand things, the SONAME is completely independent of > the file name, at least in principle. It's not quite that

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 02:30:49PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm under the impression that any shared library *must* have > > a SONAME. > > Yes, but "SONAME" just means the name of the .so file. OK, now I'm truly confused. I thought a "SONAME" was something embedded into the shared ob

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

> I'm under the impression that any shared library *must* have > a SONAME. Yes, but "SONAME" just means the name of the .so file. Policy uses this term incorrectly to refer to the extension of the soname. Saying that a shared library must have a SONAME is then equivalent to saying that it must h

Re: About NM, email and spam

On 01-07-25 Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 01:55:34AM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: > > I got two already to my home email and one through my debian.org > > address, all from different people. Now it's funny to see just how far > > this one is spread already (I never got that many

upstream library without a SONAME

Hi, I'm under the impression that any shared library *must* have a SONAME. I can't find that precise statement in the policy manual, but section 11.3 says the package must be named "librarynamesoversion". If true, what is the procedure for packaging, say Inventor, that builds two shared libs wi

Re: About NM, email and spam

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 12:57:36AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > > FWIW, I get virtually no spam through my debian.org e-mail address which > > > is what appears on that page. > > > > I am getting a W32.Sircam virus attachment every few hours through > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is beginning to drive

Re: About NM, email and spam

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 12:57:36AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > > FWIW, I get virtually no spam through my debian.org e-mail address which > > > is what appears on that page. > > > > I am getting a W32.Sircam virus attachment every few hours through > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is beginning to drive

Re: About NM, email and spam

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 01:55:34AM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: > I got two already to my home email and one through my debian.org > address, all from different people. Now it's funny to see just how far > this one is spread already (I never got that many virus mails in such a > short time span), b

Re: About NM, email and spam

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 01:55:34AM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: > I got two already to my home email and one through my debian.org > address, all from different people. Now it's funny to see just how far > this one is spread already (I never got that many virus mails in such a > short time span),

Re: About NM, email and spam

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 01:55:34AM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: > I got two already to my home email and one through my debian.org > address, all from different people. Now it's funny to see just how far > this one is spread already (I never got that many virus mails in such a > short time span), b

Re: About NM, email and spam

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 01:55:34AM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: > I got two already to my home email and one through my debian.org > address, all from different people. Now it's funny to see just how far > this one is spread already (I never got that many virus mails in such a > short time span),