One quick message before going to sleep (hopefully) On Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 12:22:25PM +0200, Eric Leblanc wrote: > Hello all, > > I just noticed tonite in Incoming a new package named gmp3, been > a big fan of bignumber. I said to myself "great, a new gnu multiprecision > arithmetic library. Hmm, where is the -dev? No, -dev? I'll have to file > a bug on this. hmm, that's not a lib it's a front-end to mpg123!!!" > > There is something to be done about this. Now, should i file a bug > against gmp1 and gmp2 or gmp3? I think maybe gmp1 and gmp2 should be > named libgmp1 and libgmp2. What do you think? Though policy is a bit vague on this (it depends on how you read it).. For a straightforward library which has a development environment and a runtime kit including just shared libraries you need to create two packages: `<libraryname><soname>' (<soname> is the shared object name of the shared library--it's the thing that has to match exactly between building an executable and running it for the dynamic linker to be able run the program; usually the <soname> is the major number of the library) and `<libraryname><soname>-dev'. If you take libraryname to be the filename (which seems to be the case most of the time) then yes, the 'proper' way would be 'libgmp1' or so, however there are several exceptions, *glances at dselect*, svgalibg1, zlib1g, mesag3, netpbm1, etc.. (The first two still state they are librarys, the 2nd two do not..) However, as there seems to be a bit of confusion in this case, perhaps a renaming would be in order.. Zephaniah E, Hull. > > Eric L. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org > -- PGP EA5198D1-Zephaniah E, Hull <email@example.com>-GPG E65A7801 Keys available at http://whitestar.soark.net/~warp/public_keys. CCs of replies from mailing lists are encouraged.
Description: PGP signature