A package that installs /usr/lib/libspf-1.0.so.0.0.0 should be names
libspf-1.0-0 from all I can tell. The policy does not dictate how
the -dev (and -doc) package should be named. I would prefer not to
call it libspf-dev but rather encode the version.
The library packaging guide says I should include the SONAME in the
name (libspf0-dev), but this seems wrong to me. Shouldn't the name
rather include the 1.0 used by upstream?
In the case of a change in the ABI due to gcc, the -dev package can
still be reused.
If the upstream releases version 2.0, which is neither ABI nor API
compatible, a new -dev (libspf-2.0-dev) package can be made
available while the previous version of the library can still be
used.
How should I name the -dev and -doc packages?
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
"truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because
fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; truth isnt."
-- mark twain
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature