Stefan Metzmacher <metze@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > a comment on versioning in general not really about your commit. > > Is it still correct to have liburing1* in debian/control, shouldn't > it be liburing2 now? Yes, I'll correct that in a reroll. > Also shouldn't we get version= out of liburing.spec as that seems to contain the current > version number... instead of using git describe --match "lib*" | cut -d '-' -f 2 Agreed. I've also got patches on the way which will allow building .debs without git at all. > I also noticed that this > commit c0b43df28a982747e081343f23289357ab4615db > Author: Bikal Lem <gbikal+git@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon Nov 15 13:09:30 2021 +0000 > > src/Makefile: use VERSION variable consistently > > src/Makefile defines incorrect 'liburing.so' version, i.e 2.1 as > opposed to 2.2. This commit makes src/Makefile use correct version > defined in liburing.spec. Along the way we refactor the use of common > variables into Makefile.common and include it into both src/Makefile > and Makefile. > > Signed-off-by: Bikal Lem <gbikal+git@xxxxxxxxx> > > changed the library soname from liburing.so.2 to just liburing.so, which seems wrong. Separate issue, but yes, I'm inclined to agree with Stefan that the ".2" should remain. (I'm not an expert in library/packaging issues by any means; I just want the ability to cleanly uninstall/upgrade via debs)
