[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


Hi all,

I have here a build of xpm 3.4j, with much reworked debian/* files.
I will not upload it, yet. I'd like to confirm with everyone involved
about corectness of some changes. Any changes named are intended for
potato, of course.

This is the new naming scheme, that would standardize the package

   xpm4g -> libxpm4                      the .so.* library
   xpm4g-dev -> libxpm-dev               the .a and .so + sxpm
   xpm4.7 -> libxpm4-alt                 the libc5 version
   xpm4-altdev -> libxpm4-altdev         the libc5 devel. version

The xpm-bin package contents is merged into libxpm4-dev package,
because it was a <10KB package, and libxpm4-dev with it is just 85KB. 

The new and old packages contents generally don't differ, it is the
same lib with same (so)name. All changes are specific to Debian.

>From what I know, nothing depends on old xpm4g-dev, xpm4.7 and xpm4-altdev
packages, except some interdependencies, so that change can't make much
(any?) harm.
I could remove libxpm4-altdev alltogether, but probably some source
dependencies exist. Maintainers of these, please speak up.

But, what worries me, is that I cannot safely make libxpm4 replace xpm4g,
since about 100 packages depend on a *version* of xpm4g, and we don't
have versioned provides :(

I don't like major recompiles, although that would be a solution,
and doable for potato.

I'd like to upload the packages anyhow, and soon, since that way I'll
close some number of bugs.  So, should I leave xpm4g named that way for
now, until dpkg people create support for versioned provides?

Once again, stay cool, I won't upload *anything* before I get advice.


Reply to: