On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 21:13 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 02:48:51AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2009 19:59 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > +Build-Depends: texi2html (>= 1.76), gettext, texinfo, dc, pkg-config, dietlibc-dev (>> 0.30) [alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc ppc64 s390 sparc], debhelper (>= 7.0), libblkid-dev (>= 2.16), libuuid-dev (>= 2.16) > > > > Same question as for libblkid-dev... Ideally, even thought the package > > version is 2.x, the ABI hasn't changed (AFAIK, that was a hard requirement) > > so this should really still be called libuuid1 for compatibility. > > The so version number for the package is still 1; so the packages > containing the binary shared libraries are libuuid1 and libblkid1. > What gets confusing is that version numbers for libblkid-dev, > libuuid-dev, libblkid1, and libuuid1 will be 2.16.x, not because of > any soversion number, but because that's the version number of > util-linux-ng. > It's always dangerous to start confusing SONAMEs or version numbers, and doubly so to attempt to make them match. The SONAME of a library reflects its ABI, the version number of software reflects the author's opinions about it. Scott -- Scott James Remnant scott@xxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
