Re: soname number in name of dev-package?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: soname number in name of dev-package?
- From: Jens Peter Secher <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:59:30 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <3lAvf-3Y3email@example.com> (Anthony Towns's message of "Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:10:17 +0100")
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3lgZs-3Yuemail@example.com> <3lhVw-4Nifirstname.lastname@example.org> <3llFK-7RGemail@example.com> <3lqYT-3FMfirstname.lastname@example.org> <3lAvf-3Y3email@example.com>
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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.
But the advice in the library packaging guide is to do something like
which means that only one of the -dev packages can be installed on any
AFAICT the above approach offers nothing more than simply
would do. Right?
Jens Peter Secher
_DD6A 05B0 174E BFB2 D4D9 B52E 0EE5 978A FE63 E8A1 jpsecher get2net dk_