Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I've taken a close look at possible clashes
> in parallel installation of libftdi 0.x and 1.x.
>
> Here's the current situation of libftdi 0.18 on Fedora 15:
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> /etc/udev/rules.d/99-libftdi.rules
> /usr/lib64/libftdi.so.1
> /usr/lib64/libftdi.so.1.18.0
> /usr/share/doc/libftdi-0.18/AUTHOS
> /usr/share/doc/libftdi-0.18/COPYING.LIB
> /usr/share/doc/libftdi-0.18/xxx
> /usr/bin/libftdi-config
> /usr/include/ftdi.h
> /usr/lib64/libftdi.so
> /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libftdi.pc
> /usr/share/doc/libftdi-devel-0.18
> /usr/share/doc/libftdi-devel-0.18/html
> /usr/share/doc/libftdi-devel-0.18/html/xxx
> /usr/share/man/man3/Ftdi.3.gz
> /usr/share/man/man3/Ftdi_Context.3.gz
> ...
> /usr/share/man/man3/ftdi_device_list.3.gz
> /usr/share/man/man3/ftdi_eeprom.3.gz
> /usr/share/man/man3/libftdi.3.gz
> /usr/share/man/man3/usb_dev_handle.3.gz
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> A parallel installation of libftdi 1.x gives the following trouble:
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> - .so library name clash -> soversion already bumped to 2.x
> - libftdi-config name clash
> - ftdi.h name clash
> - pkgconfig filename clash: libftdi.pc
> - man pages name clashes
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I propose the following changes for libftdi 1.x
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> - libftdi-config -> libftdi-1.0-config
> - ftdi.h -> /usr/include/ftdi-1.0.h
> - libftdi.pc -> libftdi-1.0.pc (pkgconfig file). Also "libftdipp-1.0.pc"
> - we can't do much about possible man page clashes.
> You can't prefix them in doxygen, just redirect
> the output to a non-default directory
> - Rename "libftdi.spec" to "libftdi-1.0.spec"
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now the big question: Should we also change the library name to "libftdi-1.0"?
> IMHO it's a good idea since broken linker flags might point to the previous
> libftdi 0.1 and result in very bogus error messages.
>
> The "-X.0" suffix is used by several projects like libxml2 or glib2.
> It will stay at "-1.0" if we increase the official version f.e. to 1.5.
> I'm not fixed on the "-X.0", I just want -any- suffix to be in there.
> We could also go for "libftdi1" instead of "libftdi-1.0".
>
> Distributions could also offer a "libftdi1-compat" package which
> provides symbolic links from the libftdi 0.x file locations to 1.x
> if libftdi-devel from 0.x is not installed in parallel.
> The APIs should be mostly compatible.
>
>
> Opinions? Better ideas?
Can you remind us why we can't just dump libftdi 0.x for good and
avoid all of this?
-jim
--
libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
