Re: readline and bfd libraries?

[david@elo.ods.com (David Engel)]

> > As an example, here is how I'm currently planning to package Tcl in
> > the new ELF version.
> > 
> > tcl74 will contain tclsh7.4, libtcl7.4.so.1 and supporting run-time
> > files and documentation.  It will coexist with other shared library
> > packages such as tcl75.
> > 
> > tcl-dev will contain header files, static libraries and supporting
> > documentation.  Only one of these packages will be allowed at a time.
> 
> So the convention you're using here is
>  <package><library-major>
> for the shared libraries and supporting run-time files and
>  <package>-dev
> for the developer version.

That's the way I was leaning yesterday.  Today, I'm leaning towards
<package><major> and <package><major>-dev.  The reason being that
dependencies would be simpler.  I'll use Tcl/Tk as an example again.

If I used tcl-dev and tk-dev, I would have to make tk-dev-4.0-* depend
on tcl-dev-7.4-*.  I don't know if dpkg can do that.  If I used
tcl74-dev and tk40-dev, tk40-dev-* could simply depend on tcl74-dev.
The various tcl*-dev packages would still be mutually exclusive by
having them all provide and conflict with tcl-dev.

This would also be consistent with how I've already done libc5.  One
other benefit would that the ftp administrator would be less likely to
inadverntantly delete tcl74-dev whenever tcl75-dev comes along since 
it has a different base package name.

> > BTW, since I used Tcl for my example, I might as well ask this now.
> > The command-level manual pages will go in the tcl74 package and the
> > C-level manual pages will go in the tcl-dev package, but where should
> > the script-level manual pages go?  IMO, they should go with the
> > interpreter in the tcl74 package, but making them coexist with tcl75,
> > etc.  would be impratical.
> 
> They might also be quite large, and wouldn't necessarily be needed by
> all programs that are linked against libtcl.so.  Perhaps a separate
> package for the documentation ?  tcl-doc sounds like the obvious name.

That had occurred to me as well.  However, does anyone see a real
advantage, to installing the doc package without the dev package or
installing one version of the doc package and a different version of
the dev package.  If not, the documentation might as well be folded
in with the dev package.

David
-- 
David Engel                        Optical Data Systems, Inc.
david@ods.com                      1101 E. Arapaho Road
(214) 234-6400                     Richardson, TX  75081