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

Re: Intent to package: [Biology] seqio library

On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Joel Klecker wrote:

> At 13:54 +0200 1999-03-24, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 03:38:17AM -0800, Joel Klecker wrote:
> >> Policy says the -dev package is supposed to have the "soname" too.
> >
> >It's optional.
> >
> >Debian Policy § 4.3: "... If you prefer only to support one
> >development version at a time you may name the development package
> >`<libraryname>-dev' ..."
> I find that sort of inconsistency bothersome. That and policy's 
> incorrect usage of "soname".

On the contrary, I think that sometimes it is even good that only a
development version is available, this way you always know which is the
"good one" to be used.


libfoo3 is released and packaged for Debian and the old libfoo2 becomes

Since libfoo3-dev is the "good one" (i.e. the preferred one to be used),
people have to remove libfoo2-dev and install libfoo3-dev.

Having just a single libfoo-dev, this is done automatically by dselect.
(i.e. it is upgraded from libfoo-dev_2 to libfoo-dev_3, since the package
didn't change its name).

Moreover, usually libfoo2-dev have to be made "extra" (since compiling
with an old library is a special requirement) and keep just libfoo3-dev as
"optional" (not to mention that they usually conflict and the soon-to-be
policy regarding conflicts forbids them between optional packages). Having
a single libfoo-dev, there is no need to change priorities up and down,
and there are no conflicts.

I think the real inconsistency is having several development -dev packages
around when we often only need the latest one, so I'm glad that the policy
actually allows having a single -dev package.


 "7531ecb0121e61f1554f29b4a4c681a1" (a truly random sig)

Reply to: