[sword-devel] sword library versioning and naming convention question (for packaging)

Jason Galyon jtgalyon at gmail.com
Mon Oct 20 13:47:57 MST 2008

Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
> For comparison, under Fedora we have:
> [1096] [11:49 AM] awol:~> egrep ^sword\|^gnomesword\|^bibletime /var/log/rpmpkgs
> bibletime-
> gnomesword-2.4.0-1.fc9.i386.rpm
> sword-1.5.11-1.fc9.i386.rpm
> [1097] [11:50 AM] awol:~> ls -l /usr/lib/libswo*
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 1251246 Sep 18 18:39 /usr/lib/libsword-1.5.11.so*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root bin 2441346 Sep 18 18:39 /usr/lib/libsword.a
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin     882 Sep 18 18:39 /usr/lib/libsword.la*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root bin      18 Sep 18 18:39 /usr/lib/libsword.so -> libsword-1.5.11.so*
> The scheme of appending the version number directly on the end of the
> library name has always just worked.
> And I agree, it should be the same everywhere.  I have never understood
> where "libsword6" came from in Ubuntu.
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Based on Jonathan's and your comments then what about using
libsword-1.5.11.so.1? <-- or whatever actual minor release it is

This would provide the benefit of the version convention as well as
preventing API breaking changes from slipping through a simple version
(suffix) change.

This would also enable (once the package name and dependencies are
modified) concurrent version installation if that is every needed. 
(someone would need to chime in about that one, because I have never
needed it, personally)


More information about the sword-devel mailing list