[Pkg-silc-devel] Updating SILC Toolkit to 1.0.2

[stesie at brokenpipe.de]

Hello,

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 07:01:23PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Fri 2007-05-25 18:32:59 -0400, stesie at brokenpipe.de wrote:
> 
> > even though the package is named `libsilc-1.0-2' we ship the rather
> > old version 0.9.12.  However I need the 1.0 api for kopete_silc as
> > well as `Silc Improved', since both make use of the SilcMime-API
> > which has been introduced with 1.0 ...
> 
> Is this a duplication of the work done on bug 413790?

well, unfortunately yes.  To be honest I forgot to look there first,
mainly since I started out twiddling with svn-buildpackage, which I
haven't used before...

> We should make sure that the debian bugtracker knows about things like
> this if possible, because not everyone knows about the pkg-silc-devel
> list yet, while the bug tracker is universal.

ack

> my impression was that upstream 0.9.12 does indeed export version 1.0
> symbols already.

this is what things look like with 0.9.12 based Debian package:
,--
| root at wuchtbrumme:/usr/lib# dpkg -l "*silc*"
| ii  libsilc-1.0-2  0.9.12-6       SILC library (silc-toolkit)
| ii  libsilc-1.0-2- 0.9.12-6       developer files for SILC library
| 
| root at wuchtbrumme:/usr/lib# objdump  -p libsilc*so | grep SONAME
|   SONAME      libsilcclient-1.0.so.2
|   SONAME      libsilc-1.0.so.2
| 
| root at wuchtbrumme:/usr/lib# nm libsilc.a | grep silc_mime
| 000000000000004d T silc_mime_parse
| root at wuchtbrumme:/usr/lib# 
`--
... only one silc_mime related symbol is expored.


however for the SILC Toolkit 1.0.2 release:
,--
| root at wuchtbrumme:/usr/lib# dpkg -l "*silc*"
| ii  libsilc-1.0-2  1.0.2-1        SILC library (silc-toolkit)
| ii  libsilc-1.0-2- 1.0.2-1        developer files for SILC library
|
| root at wuchtbrumme:/usr/lib# objdump  -p libsilc*so | grep SONAME
|   SONAME      libsilcclient-1.0.so.1
|   SONAME      libsilc-1.0.so.2
|
| root at wuchtbrumme:/usr/lib# nm libsilc.a | grep silc_mime
| 0000000000000060 T silc_mime_add_data
| 00000000000000f1 T silc_mime_add_field
| 0000000000000433 T silc_mime_add_multipart
[... many more]
`--

i.e. quite a lot of the silc_mime stuff has been introduced after 0.9.12
release. 

But please don't ask me why the SONAME of libsilcclient has decreased
back to 1.0.so.1.  Don't know what to do about this one, but I think it
should be fixed :)

> I've already said that my preference is for repackaging
> silc-{toolkit,client,server} from scratch using dh_make, since that
> should make the packages easier to maintain.

I wonder whether that will help a lot.  For me the more confusing thing
is the build system provided from upstream, not the Debian packaging
around it.  I'm not very used to dh_make, but for example, I think
you'll need the package renaming bits (control.sh file) as well.

> It's not clear to me how the library version numbers map to the
> upstream tarballs, and how those numbers map to the debian package
> versions.  if someone who gets this better than me could explain, i'd
> be very grateful!

At the moment it seems the package name matches the SONAME provided by
upstream, which looks correct to me.  The package version resembles the
version tag of the underlying upstream release.

The SONAME of SILC Toolkit 1.1 (Beta 4) looks like
  SONAME      libsilc-1.1.so.1
  SONAME      libsilcclient-1.1.so.1

Therefore our packages will be, and should be (according to the
packaging guide you've mentioned), called libsilc-1.1-1 and
libsilc-1.1-1-dev -- the control.sh script should automatically change
the name (haven't tested it however)

cheers,
  stesie

-- 
www.taxbird.de - der freie ELSTER Client