[Ecls-list] Bug#486376: Bug#486376: ecl: /usr/lib/libecl.so doesn't provide a SONAME

[Luca Capello]

Hi Juanjo!

Why didn't I wait for ten more minutes before sending my previous mail?
I'd have seen you already fixed it, thank you!

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:55:30 +0200, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Luca Capello <luca at pca.it> wrote:
>
>   Thank you.  If I could say more, I really prefer full dates (YYYYMMDD),
>   but this is not the scope of this bug report.
>
> That is too large and the shorter version can be directly used in
> sonames

Good point.

>   However, if my words above are correct, I can split ecl_1-1 into two
>   packages, libecl [2] and ecl [3], the latter depending on the former.  This
>   means that if the standalone program I wrote works just with the shared
>   library, I don't need to install the other internal libraries and the
>   compiler.
>
> This is true.
>
>   Could this improve the situation?
>
> As I said, the problems are not on our side, so I presume this
> question goes to the bug originator  :-)

Thus me, also one of the Debian maintainers, read below ;-)

> As mentioned in the previous email / bug answer, this change has been
> committed to ECL already.

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:38:13 +0200, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
> Last change in CVS ( 2008/09/09 )
>
>  - We switch to an Ubuntu-like versioning system, based on $(year).$(month).x
>    where "x" is 0 for a release or any higher number for a patched version.

I'll play the Devil's advocate here, sorry: does this mean that 0.1.0
will be SONAME-compatible with 0.1.1?

>  - In Unix-type systems, ECL now installs with a "soname" and using versioned
>    directory names, such as /usr/lib/ecl-8.9.0, /usr/lib/libecl.so.8.9, etc

Is a new release planned soon or should I package today's CVS snapshot
to close this bug?

This change not only fixes this problem, but it also lets different ECL
versions be installed simultaneously.

CLISP provides a similar situation, but we (i.e. Debian) decided to ship
only one version.  What's your advice here?  I'd prefer keeping the
situation as it is and consistent with CLISP: Debian ships one version,
whenever it's possible the latest release.

> This should be more than enough.

Again, thank you not only for the fix, but mainly for the time you spent
discussing it, I really appreciate.

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 314 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/ecl-devel/attachments/20080909/3a0a9d94/attachment.sig>