Subject: Re: Shared object not found - but all dependencies are ok ?!
To: Jeremy C. Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Pavel Cahyna <email@example.com>
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:
I think you are. the guide says:
The policy documents how to name library packages.
"lib[libraryname][SONAME-version-number]" like "libc6" for /lib/libc.so.
... 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.so.0 -> libsomelibrary-1.2-0
Real-life example: /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 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.