Version numbering of the shared libraries in debian packages

[jslee02]

Version numbering of the shared libraries in debian packages

This PR changes naming of the shared libraries. Since ABI breaking is done per minor version up, minor version number needs to be appear to the shared libraries.

For example:

• libdart-core4.2 package installs libdart-core.so.4.2
• libdart-core4-dev package installs libdart-core.so.4 symlink

This PR should fixes #281.

[j-rivero]

The -dev packages usually host the symlinks (.so) that points to real libraries (.so.4.2). Any reason to use here a .so.4?

[jslee02]

First, .so.4 is a symlink as well. When dart-core is built, the following files are generated:

libdart-core.so (symlink points to libdart-core.so.4.2)
libdart-core.so.4 (symlink points to libdart-core.so.4.2)
libdart-core.so.4.2 (real library)

I thought libdart-core[MAJOR_VER]-dev packages host libdart-core.so.[MAJOR_VER], which are symlinks, and libdart-core[MAJOR_VER].[MINOR_VER] pacakges host libdart-core.so.[MAJOR_VER].[MINOR_VER], which is real libraries.

Is it more standard if libdart-core[MAJOR_VER]-dev packages host libdart-core.so?

[j-rivero]

Two thoughts:

1- About SONAME used

When breaking ABI on minors, there is no point for me on having a SONAME (which will be stored in applications using the library) defined only by majors (libdart-core.so.4) since the next version 4.3 is not going to be compatible with 4.2. So, the SONAME should be lib.so.{major}.{minor} and our library real name could be lib.so.{major}.{minor}.{patch}.

2- About packaging

From the debian policy:

Shared libraries are normally split into several binary packages. The SONAME symlink is installed by the runtime shared library package, and the bare .so symlink is installed in the development package since it's only used when linking binaries or shared libraries.

So, we should put .so inside -dev and the .so.Major.Minor (symlink) and .so.Major.Minor.Patch (binary) inside the lib package.

Sorry for the previous confusion, let me know if I need to explain something better.

[jslee02]

It's an clear explanation, thanks!

I made changes that applies the policy and the other comments of yours. Please let me know if it needs more change.

[jslee02]

I think, this pr is ready to merge, if I correctly followed @j-rivero 's comment.
+1

[scpeters]

Fixed #211