Source package name for versioned libs.

[Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>]

I'm back working on finishing up an initial package for the Boehm GC,
and I've become a little confused about what to name the source
package.  This confusion has lead me to think we might be doing
something a little dangerous with our current source package naming
practices for source packages that produce shared library binary
packages.

We commonly include the major shared lib version number in the name
for binary packages containing shared libs, but in many of the
packages I examined, this version number is not reflected in the
source package.  Doesn't this (to at least some extent) defeat the
purpose of having the versioned shared lib package?  Without including
the version in the source package as well, we can end up with a binary
package that other packages depend on, but which we can no longer
build from source.

For example (not to pick on gtk, but it's the one I recall right now),
gtk's source package is gtk+, and it produces libgtk1.  Now consider
the release of gtk version 2.  If the source package's name isn't
changed to something like gtk2+, then as soon as the new gtk+ package
that produces libgtk2 is uploaded and clobbers the old gtk+ source
package, we no longer have any way to create libgtk1, even though
existing packages may depend on it.

Not good (or am I overlooking something?)

-- 
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org