Subject: Re: Shared object not found - but all dependencies are ok ?!
To: Jeremy C. Reed <>
From: Pavel Cahyna <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 01/13/2005 19:54:49
> > > Do you have any examples, because that webpage doesn't show any.
> >
> > I don't understand what are you saying... the examples you just gave are
> > not enough?
> I may be reading the webpage wrong. It says it prefers the name:

>  lib[libraryname]-[SONAME]

I think you are. the guide says:

 The policy documents how to name library packages.
 "lib[libraryname][SONAME-version-number]"  like "libc6" for /lib/

And below,

 ... for library packages with a name ending in a numeric, the form
 lib[libraryname]-[SONAME] is preferred.

Most of libraries don't have names ending in a numeric...

> And I didn't see any examples with the dash (-). Nor does it talk about

/usr/lib/ -> libsomelibrary-1.2-0

Real-life example: /usr/lib/ is in package libgtk2.0-0

(true, there is some inconsistency in that example in the missing -x11-.
But the usage of the version number is clear)

> removing the periods (.).

The second case should probably read [SONAME-version-number] instead of
[SONAME]. Otherwise everything seems to be constistent.

> Maybe this webpage is old.

I don't think so.

> Also the webpage discusses packages which provide many different libraries
> can be a problem.

Yes, it seems that the Debian policy is to split such packages.

Bye	Pavel