[xmlsec] versioning and library naming policies

[John Belmonte]

Aleksey Sanin wrote:
> I just looked at the librar namig and it seems that we are doing right 
> thing already:
> 
>    [aleksey@lsh lib]$ ls *xmlsec*.so*
...
> 
> Why do you think it needs to be changed?


Hi,

Please take a look at my original message once more.  It's not just about shared 
libraries, but static libraries also.  I explained the rationale for putting the 
version in the main part of the library name (e.g., xmlsec-0.1 instead of just 
xmlsec) for both cases.  This scheme is followed by many libraries.  To get a 
rough idea, simply try:

     ls /usr/lib/lib*[0-9].so

or

     ls /usr/lib/lib*[0-9].a

Another point I'll add is that "development" and "snapshot" versions of software 
appear in Debian all the time.  The fact is that many Linux developers use 
Debian for their cutting-edge work and want all tools and libraries to be nicely 
packaged.  For things to go smoothly, development versions need to coexist 
properly with stable versions.  Having soname or library file name conflicts, 
even temporarily, throws a wrench in this.

Regards,
-John



-- 
http:// if   l .   /