Closed proycon closed 5 years ago
@kosloot: Question on SO versions and debian packaging. We currently we have a libfolia6
package in debian, from libfolia v1.6, initially that produced libfolia.so.6.0.0
, but the latest release bumps this to libfolia.so.6.0.3
. The version bump looks a bit too minor to me because we have ABI breakage again (I tested this in this case, old 0.9.6 ucto package doesn't work with newest libfolia binary; symbols not found).
I have to name the libfolia package differently if ABI breaks. We had libfolia5
and libfolia4
prior to this, so libfolia7
would make most sense I guess, otherwise we have to invent yet another version naming scheme like libfolia-6.0.3 which seems rather messy and inconsistent with past practice, I could also do libfolia10 (in reference to the v1.10), but then the so version (6.0.3) bears no relation to that. What do you think?
We also need to make very sure there are no ABI breakages in ticcutils and ucto, otherwise I have to change those package names too (see LanguageMachines/ticcutils#8 and LanguageMachines/ucto#36)
v1.101.1 is released with .so version 7.0.0 libfolia7 looks fine with me.
Ready on alioth
ready on Alioth again
Process feedback from sponsor
1.13 is released already...
yeah, the debian releases are on the back burner lately in favour of LaMachine work
Ready on salsa. Addresses https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915624
Note: SO version bump!