[PATCHES] Generate shorter name for extra python files

[Lukas Slebodnik]

On (06/07/17 22:44), Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>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.
>

Most of the thread there was discussion about changed version symbols
in library which is not related to python3 work.

The only think which I do not understand is following sentence
  "I've tried changing the SAMBA_LIBRARY code
   to match, but I still get .py3 and -py3 mixups"

And I do not think that was solved by this patchset.

LS