Re: Jacob Champion
> > > +This module ABI is an internal implementation detail, so it's subject to change
> > > +without warning, even during minor releases (however unlikely). The compiled
> > > +version of libpq-oauth should always match the compiled version of libpq.
> >
> > Shouldn't we then include the *minor* version in the soname?
>
> No objection here.
Mmmmh. Since we are currently only talking about 3 symbols, it doesn't
sound very likely that we'd have to bump this in a major branch.
Putting the minor version into the filename would make looking at
package diffs harder when upgrading. Do we really need this as opposed
to some hardcoded number like libpq.so.5.18 ?
Perhaps reusing the number from libpq.so.5.18 also for this lib would
be the way to go?
> > Which actually makes me wonder if we ought to instead load the library from a
> > specific location...
>
> We could hardcode the disk location for version 1, I guess. I kind of
> liked giving packagers the flexibility they're used to having from the
> ld.so architecture, though. See below.
pkglibdir or a subdirectory of it might make sense.
Though for Debian, I'd actually prefer
/usr/lib/$DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH/libpq/libpq-oauth...
since the libpq packaging is independent from the major version
packaging.
> Are there technical downsides of putting it into $libdir? I understand
> there are "people" downsides, since we don't really want to signal
> that this is a publicly linkable thing... but surely if you go through
> the process of linking our library (which has no SONAME, includes the
> major/minor version in its -l option, and has no pkgconfig) and
> shoving a private pointer to a threadlock into it, you can keep all
> the pieces when they break?
The Debian Policy expectation is that everything in libdir is a proper
library that could be linked to, and that random private stuff should
be elsewhere. But if being able to use the default lib search path is
an important argument, we could put it there.
Christoph
