Re: 5.1 beta problem linking luac against .so

[Daniel Silverstone <dsilvers@...>]

On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 00:49 +0100, Klaus Ripke wrote:
> Easy to maintain?
> Like just redirecting liblua.so.5 from liblua.so.5.0 to liblua.so.5.1?
> In accordance with all those "standards" about major and minor and x,
> but blowing up just plain everything.

No dear.

Easy to maintain as in liblua50.so.5.0 and thusly liblua51.so.5.1

There's a reason Debian's SONAME isn't "liblua" but is "liblua50" and
that's because the person who did the original packaging *THOUGHT* about
this problem and solved it.

> Yet, it's the packager's job to develop an overall
> coherent distribution, not the Lua author's task
> (considering all those platforms, many without
> a concept of major, minor or patchlevel versions).

Well, some would argue that it's upstream's job to actually follow the
rules about API/ABI compatibility in major/minor/revision versioning
systems, but Lua makes no claim to follow those rules and thus the
Debian packager's job is made somewhat easy by simply being careful
about the SONAMEs.

> OTOH, I'd really hate to see my app blow up just because
> of some "update" and so I will always link it statically.
> Using dietlibc or similar, it's not only self-contained
> and much faster, it's even smaller.

It's nice to know that you don't trust your distribution maintainers to
look after you. I deliberately don't statically link so that I can take
advantage of security updates.

Regards,

Daniel.
(The original Lua packager for Debian :-)

-- 
Daniel Silverstone                         http://www.digital-scurf.org/
PGP mail accepted and encouraged.            Key Id: 2BC8 4016 2068 7895