Stupid library ABI question

Hello, I have a dumb library ABI question. Suppose I maintain a library libfoo.so that has public functions A(), B() and C(). Now there is a new release in which libfoo.so only provides A(), but it is now (newly) dynamically linked against libbar.so, which has public functions B() and C() with i

Re: Stupid library ABI question

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:19:40 -0800, "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hello, I have a dumb library ABI question. Suppose I maintain a > library libfoo.so that has public functions A(), B() and C(). Now > there is a new release in which libfoo.so only provides A(), but it is > now (n

Re: Stupid library ABI question

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:19:40 -0800 "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I have a dumb library ABI question. Suppose I maintain a library > libfoo.so that has public functions A(), B() and C(). Now there is a > new release in which libfoo.so only provides A(), but it is now

Re: Library sonames and unstable libraries

Hi, > > > Too, there are actually two forms of library soname file naming used: > > libfoo.so.1.2.3 > > and > > libfoo-1.2.3.so > > Only the first one is mentioned in the various packaging guides, hmmm ? excluding this? http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html

RFS: libpam-radius-auth (updated package)

Dear mentors, It's a nmu. I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.3.16-4.2 of Fabio M. Di Nitto's package "libpam-radius-auth". It builds these binary packages: libpam-radius-auth - The PAM RADIUS authentication module The package is lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 4054

Re: Library sonames and unstable libraries

Hi, Junichi Uekawa wrote: >>> Too, there are actually two forms of library soname file naming used: >>> libfoo.so.1.2.3 >>> and >>> libfoo-1.2.3.so >> Only the first one is mentioned in the various packaging guides, > > hmmm ? excluding this? > > http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpk