Re: soname number in name of dev-package?
Frank Küster wrote:
Do I understand right that you recommend not to use libfoo1-dev,
libfoo2-dev generally, but that the most recent version should be just
libfoo-dev? The Debian library packaging guide gives the opposite
advice, to use libfoo<number>-dev always, but I have learned that this
document does not represent a consensus, anyway.
If you need libfoo-dev 1 and libfoo-dev 2 installed simultaneously on
user's machines, you need different package names. That's desirable very
rarely and usually entirely undesirable -- it wastes disk space, forces
people to edit build-depends and potentially makefiles, and generally
ends up just being confusing.
If you come at it from the view of "what can we suggest that'll work for
everyone, no matter what they need", then always renaming makes sense.
If you come at it from the view of "what'll involve the least complexity
for users, me, and other developers", keeping the same package name is
usually the right answer.
Bumping the version in the -dev isn't a real problem, but bumping random
other package names gets to be. Seriously, changing package names is
always a nuisance; so you should only do it when it's necessary -- which
is to say when the new package is deliberately broken -- in the sense it
doesn't provide the functionality the old one did. For comparison, libc6
is an example of a library that doesn't deliberately break, libgal is an
example of a library that deliberately breaks quite regularly. (Get a
list of packages and a dart if you want an example of a package that