Hello, I was trying to package libzdb for inclusion in Fedora. One concern that came up was the sonames generated with the version of libzdb as part of the soname.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474044#c4
Have you considered generating your sonames to reflect the ABI version of the package rather than tying it to the package version?
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Jan-Henrik Haukeland hauk@tildeslash.comwrote:
On 22. des.. 2008, at 01.14, Bernard Johnson wrote:
Have you considered generating your sonames to reflect the ABI version of the package rather than tying it to the package version?
Submit a patch
This is what I am using as a workaround: http://fedorapeople.org/~bjohnson/soname-version.patch
This generates the shared libraries (for 2.3) in the format libzdb.so.5.1.0 rather than libzdb-2.3.so.5.1.0.
I don't know enough about the autotools files to generate a proper patch. It's unlikely that I could get this into Fedora without the upstream blessing of the library versioning.
This is a good suggestion and we have dropped release info from the library name. Can you please check out libzdb from svn, build it and verify that the library is named as you requested?
Checkout from http://code.google.com/p/libzdb/source/checkout
You need re2c (a scanner) to build from subversion. re2c should be available in a fedora package otherwise try http://re2c.org/
On 5. feb.. 2009, at 08.50, Bernard Johnson wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Jan-Henrik Haukeland <hauk@tildeslash.com
wrote:
On 22. des.. 2008, at 01.14, Bernard Johnson wrote:
Have you considered generating your sonames to reflect the ABI version of the package rather than tying it to the package version?
Submit a patch
This is what I am using as a workaround: http://fedorapeople.org/~bjohnson/soname-version.patch
This generates the shared libraries (for 2.3) in the format libzdb.so.5.1.0 rather than libzdb-2.3.so.5.1.0.
I don't know enough about the autotools files to generate a proper patch. It's unlikely that I could get this into Fedora without the upstream blessing of the library versioning.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Jan-Henrik Haukeland hauk@tildeslash.comwrote:
This is a good suggestion and we have dropped release info from the library name. Can you please check out libzdb from svn, build it and verify that the library is named as you requested?
Checkout from http://code.google.com/p/libzdb/source/checkout
You need re2c (a scanner) to build from subversion. re2c should be available in a fedora package otherwise try http://re2c.org/
I checked out the r175 diff and applied it to the 2.3 sources and ran autoreconf and the library names came out without the release version - this was what I was looking for. If you want me to test specifically the svn version too, I can do that.
The other suggestion that was made to me was that you might want to move the header file install from $DESTDIR$(includedir) to $DESTDIR$(includedir)/$(PACKAGE_NAME) [or similar]. The names of the header files are fairly generic and might create a namespace collision.
For Fedora I'm currently applying a patch for this, but it seems like a good idea to me.
Thank you.
The following has been added to the repository:
* From version 2.4, libzdb places its header files into a zdb sub-directory as in, <prefix>/include/zdb. Clients can choose to use the include-dir compiler flag, -I<prefix>/include/zdb and not modify their code or skip zdb from the include flag and instead prefix their #include statements with zdb like so; #include <zdb/URL.h>. If name interposing can be a problem the latter variant should be used.
Version 2.4 is planned to be released before Monday february 16.
On 6. feb.. 2009, at 04.15, Bernard Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Jan-Henrik Haukeland <hauk@tildeslash.com
wrote:
This is a good suggestion and we have dropped release info from the library name. Can you please check out libzdb from svn, build it and verify that the library is named as you requested?
Checkout from http://code.google.com/p/libzdb/source/checkout
You need re2c (a scanner) to build from subversion. re2c should be available in a fedora package otherwise try http://re2c.org/
I checked out the r175 diff and applied it to the 2.3 sources and ran autoreconf and the library names came out without the release version - this was what I was looking for. If you want me to test specifically the svn version too, I can do that.
The other suggestion that was made to me was that you might want to move the header file install from $DESTDIR$(includedir) to $DESTDIR$ (includedir)/$(PACKAGE_NAME) [or similar]. The names of the header files are fairly generic and might create a namespace collision.
For Fedora I'm currently applying a patch for this, but it seems like a good idea to me.
Thank you.
On 22. des.. 2008, at 01.14, Bernard Johnson wrote:
I see that you fedora guys have had a long discussion about the exception to the GPL we added to libzdb. As the package maintainer for fedora you should know that we have added the following changes in the upcoming 2.5 version of libzdb:
* Removed GPL license exceptions. The library is now licensed under the GPL, version 3 only. The orginal intent behind the exception was to make it possible to link and distribute the library or modifications thereof with other open source programs not licensed under the GPL. However, the exception seemed to be more confusing than clarifying for some and to remove any legal fog around the licensing of libzdb it is now GPLv3 only.
-
Bernard Johnson -
Jan-Henrik Haukeland