Re: possible mass-filing of bugs: many shared library packages contain binaries in usr/bin
Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> immo vero scripsit:
> > No, -dev should have the following entry:
> > Package: libsomething1-dev
> > Provides: libsomething-dev
> > Conflicts: libsomething-dev
> > so that only one version of the -dev package will be installable.
> That is exactly what Stephen said.
Stephen said libsomething1 should conflict with libsomething2,
which is undesirable.
> > > Either way it is not *automatically* a bug to have a binary in a library
> > > package.
> > I have clued you to the problems and solutions, can you still say that
> > again?
> I agree that it is not, in general, a good idea to provide programs in a
> shared library package. However, it is not a bug in itself, as there are
> reasonable and useful ways in which it can be done safely. For example, if
> I supply a libfoo1-whizbang script in my libfoo1 package which would coexist
> with a libfoo2-whizbang script supplied by a future libfoo2 package.
Yes, but that doesn't happen all the time.
Binaries found in runtime shared library pacakge should be
named with sonames in mind, or tucked in somewhere inside
firstname.lastname@example.org : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org