FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.

» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-05-2008, 08:34 PM
Neil Williams
Default package names for library modules (was: shlibs vs symbols)

On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 09:37 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008, Paul Wise wrote:
> > I was reviewing a library package RFS (libthai) and I noticed that the
> > shlibs pointed at version X and all the symbols in the symbols file
> > pointed at an earlier version. Here I assume that the shlibs should be
> > changed to point to the earlier version?

> > libqof-backend-qsf0: shlibs no version, symbols all 0.7.3, changelog goes way back
> > libqof1: shlibs no version, symbols all 0.7.2, changelog goes way back
> Strange, stable has 0.7.1... and lack of version in shlibs is probably a
> bug, but one that can't be triggered except by building on etch with a
> dpkg-dev that doesn't support symbols files yet.

Looks like old data - 0.7.5 is current in unstable and has:
shlibsepends: libglib2.0-0 (>= 2.6.0), libqof1 (= 0.7.5-1), libxml2
(>= 2.5.10)
shlibsepends=libgda3-3, libc6 (>= 2.7-1), libglib2.0-0 (>= 2.12.0)

True, the symbols version differs but, TBH, libqof-backend-qsf0|sqlite0
are a bit of an anomaly at the moment. I'm waiting for the transition to
libqof2 at which point the backend modules will be renamed and
repackaged as private libraries. I've decided to wait until after Lenny
to make the transition - the upstream code will not be ready until after
the main Lenny freeze has begun.

Symbols were only implemented in 0.7.3 and I saw no point going back to
0.7.1, just show that the symbols in 0.7.3 were compatible with 0.7.2.

After the transition, the backend modules will no longer be shlibs so
there will be no symbols for those, just libqof2 which will start at
0.8.0 (a lot of symbols are being removed in the transition).

Actually, this reminds me of a question for debian-devel:

Is there a convention for the package name for *library modules* ?

GDA has modules that are loaded by a library and which are optional -
the user can choose from one of a few backend modules.

QOF has a very similar mechanism - the backends are modular (GModule)
and entirely optional (as long as at least one is available). After the
transition, these will be private libraries and I'm thinking of using
the names:


This is similar to the new package names for the GDA backends:
libgda3-mysql, libgda3-postgres, libgda3-odbc, libgda3-sqlite,
libgda3-freetds - which were changed from the equivalent packages for

QOF also supports modular object libraries to support a variety of
frontends. These are shlibs and are currently named as:
libqofcashobjects0 ...
(with -dev, -dbg etc. as normal)

Applications then mix-and-match object libraries (and/or their own
objects) at compile time and call routines in libqof1|2 to dynamically
load the backend module as requested by the user.

The transition is the perfect time to change the names of the other



Neil Williams

Thread Tools

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:33 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org