Hi Michael. I don't agree with renaming the package name. The debian policy manual says in section 8.1 [1] that:
The run-time shared library must be placed in a package whose
name changes whenever the SONAME of the shared
library changes. This allows several versions of the shared
library to be installed at the same time, allowing installation
of the new version of the shared library without immediately
breaking binaries that depend on the old version. Normally,
the run-time shared library and its SONAME symlink should be
placed in a package named librarynamesoversion, where soversion
is the version number in the SONAME of the shared library.
Alternatively, if it would be confusing to directly append
soversion to libraryname (if, for example, libraryname itself
ends in a number), you should use libraryname-soversion instead.
This is what I believe we are doing. Can you explain more in detail
what is wrong? From my reading, we are doing what we should do, and
what you suggest would not be consistent with the above.
/Simon
[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-share
dlibs-runtime
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
