[PATCHES] Generate shorter name for extra python files

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 12:28 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (06/07/17 22:14), Andrew Bartlett via samba-technical wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 11:54 +0200, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 15:26:33 CEST Lukas Slebodnik via samba-technical 
> > > wrote:
> > > > ehlo,
> > > > 
> > > > Generating different name with different architecture and with the same
> > > > version of python is not ideal. pkgconfig files should be architecture
> > > > independent and libraries for different architectures are stored in
> > > > different directories
> > > >  e.g. (/usr/lib64, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ ...)
> > > > 
> > > > Therefore it will be simpler to remove architecture from names
> > > > /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/pyldb-util.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.pc
> > > > vs.
> > > > /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/pyldb-util36.pc
> > > > 
> > > > LS
> > > 
> > > RB+
> > > 
> > > Could we get new releases for talloc and ldb including this? Also 
> > > f5cafee0c7a96396798d2b229ff3f9dced1d74f3 is not part of a release!
> > 
> > I'm a bit nervous about this.  I tried to untangle a mess on Debian in
> > this area, and ended up abandoning the py3 package for talloc with the
> > parent commits to this:
> > 
> > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-samba/talloc.git/commit/?id=11a83cac638719df56d8115837f9b8b744d6a69e
> > 
> > I'm not opposed to the idea in the patches, but I'm not sure it is
> > changing enough, or the right things.  The variables there have become
> > a tangled mess!
> > 
> 
> I tent to agree.
> 
> > I realise this was 'just' trying to sort out pkgconfig, but we do need
> > to sort out the ABI upstream, not in Debian etc, but I would love it if
> > someone else could help me ensure that we could now re-enabled py3 in
> > debian without hacks and with the right thing happening.  Ideally we
> > get this changed once, break the ABI once, and get this right.
> > 
> 
> It solved also libraries and not only pkgconfig files
> 
> /usr/lib64/libpyldb-util3.6.so
> /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/pyldb-util3.6.pc
> 
> And we need to have different name for library because
> libpyldb-util3.6.so is linked against python3.6 and have to be used
> only by python module for 3.6.
> 
> Standard libpyldb-util.so is linked with standard python (usually 2.7)
> 
> I am open to another suggestion for names. Maybe libpyldb-util-3.6.so
> but that's minimal change.
> 
> Could you describe what kind of packaging problems did you have on debian?
> It is not obvious for me from that commit.

Here is the thread:

https://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-samba-maint/2016-April/018139.html

It looks like I suggested following Fedora, so I'll generally stick to
that position.

When reading the thread and trying to read symbol versions, remember
the mail archiver has changed @ to _at_ just to confuse you/spammers.

Thanks!

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                       http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team  http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT          http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba