On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 05:16:31PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> While I agree with you, and have started the petitioning process, I'd
> still really appreciate suggestions on what SONAME to use for the
> package between now and such time as upstream adopts a SONAME.
Don't invent one at all. B
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 05:16:31PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> While I agree with you, and have started the petitioning process, I'd
> still really appreciate suggestions on what SONAME to use for the
> package between now and such time as upstream adopts a SONAME.
Don't invent one at all.
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
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
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
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?
> 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,
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
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
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
> 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:
>
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
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
>
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
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
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?
> 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,
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
> > 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
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
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
> 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
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
> 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:
>
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
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
> > 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
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
> 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
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
