Re: Once again: libc6 packages compatibility etc...
> > > > If I follow Brian's idea I will have the following:
> > > >
> > > > libgmp1_1.3.2-6 libc5 version
> > > > libgmp1-dev_1.3.2-6
> > > > and
> > > > gmp2_2.0.2-3 libc6 version
> > > > gmp-dev_2.0.2-3
> > > >
> > > > These can both reside in the libs section without confusion, since they
> > > > will clearly be in seperate portions of the list.
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't this remove the need for the g and alt identifier strings?
> > >
> > > Yes, but I think it would be a bad idea to deviate from -altdev at
> > > this point. Telling users some "altdev" packages use -altdev while
> > > some others use -dev would probably only confuse them more than they
> > > already will be.
> >
> > This would be a much bigger problem with a released distribution. Since
> > hamm is still "unstable", only developers and other suckers for punishment
> > are currently using it.
>
> But there are packages whose name doesn't begin with "lib" (for example
> xlib6, xpm4) so those can't use the newly proposed method.
That's a good point. It would be nice to have a consistant naming
mechnanism, though. Can anybody think of a way around this, or is
it insurmountable?
Brian
( bcwhite@verisim.com )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generated by Signify v1.02. For this and more, visit http://www.verisim.com/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: