This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Package naming convention and contents
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:35:07 +0200
- Subject: Re: Package naming convention and contents
- References: <51DB0DB2 dot 2010409 at tiscali dot co dot uk>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
Hi David,
On Jul 8 20:06, David Stacey wrote:
> I am preparing a library package called Poco. Whilst Marco gave me a
> GTG, both he and Ken were a little unsure about the package names
> that I had used. Please could some of you good folk give me a little
> guidance in this matter.
>
> At the moment, I have tried to copy the naming convention used by
> our 'boost' package, as Poco is similar in its layout and intended
> usage. I have a source package (poco-1.4.6p1-1.src.tar.bz2) that
> builds the following:
>
>
> libpoco1.4.6
> - Several versioned libraries, e.g. cygPocoData_1_4_6.dll.
> - A couple of unversioned executables.
>
> libpoco-devel
> - Header files and libs to link against Poco.
>
> libpoco-doc
> - HTML documentation.
>
> poco-debuginfo
> - Debug files, generated by cygport.
>
>
> The contentious package is the first one. The point of having
> versioned library files is that you can have any number of them
> installed side-by-side (if you'll forgive the Microsoftism). In that
> way, some other package will always pull in the exact version of
> Poco that it was linked against. For that reason, the two
> unversioned executables don't belong here, and I should probably
> move them into a package simply called 'poco'. However, unless
> there's an API breakage, versioned libraries shouldn't be necessary.
>
> Then there's the name of the package itself. This could have been
> 'libpoco', 'libpoco1', or 'libpoco1.4'. The first of these is
> probably wrong, as there is some intention to release Poco 2.x at
> some point that will require a C++11 compliant compiler. Hence,
> we'll may want to support Poco 1.x for a while. Reading the change
> log, it appears that API changes can come in at any release.
I had hoped somebody else would reply here since I'm a bit fuzzy on the
library naming schemes.
Basically versioning is good. If the project uses libtool, you get a
unique version number usually, see, for instance, the libncurses
packages (libncurses7, libncurses8, libncurses9, libncurses10). The
name of the package reflects the version number of the DLL
(cygncurses-7.dll, cygncurses-8.dll, cygncurses-9.dll, cygncurses-10.dll.
If the package does not use libtool, you should ideally go with what the
upstream maintainers go with. How are the libraries versioned on Linux,
for instance?
I just installed the Fedora "poco-foundation" package, which contains
only the shared lib, on Fedora 19. F19 has poco 1.4.2 and the shared
lib is called libPocoFoundation.so.11. A look into the source package
shows that the number is noted in a file called "libversion". The build
process seems to make sure that the shared library get that number, and,
looking into the sources I can see this:
build/rules/global: LIBVERSION := $(shell cat $(POCO_BASE)/libversion)
*/Makefile: target_version = $(LIBVERSION)
build/config/CYGWIN: SHAREDLIBEXT = .$(target_version).dll
Apart from a wrong assumption in the build/config/CYGWIN file in terms
of strip(1), which is unrelated, I don't understand why your lib isn't
called cygPocoFoundation.11.dll. Naturally the libray package name
would be libpoco11. Or, following the Linux lead, the package name
could be poco-foundation-11.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat