* Junichi Uekawa (dancer@netfort.gr.jp) wrote: > > * Junichi Uekawa (dancer@netfort.gr.jp) wrote: > > > I'd like to propose, for new -dev packages, to > > > name -dev packages after their runtime library counterparts. > > > > Uh, no? The -dev packages have no need to match to a specific runtime > > library and this just creates unnecessary work. > > Well, I will list the rationale; it might have been a bit > of an abrupt mail for those who did not attend today's talk. > > 1. usually -dev packages have a symlink to the shared library > contained in the runtime shared library package. Uhh, this isn't a reason for them to have the major SO version in the name of the -dev package. > 2. The information of -dev packages depending on other -dev packages > cannot be automatically determined currently; > it should be possible to obtain a minimal list by analyzing the > NEEDED field of the objdump output. Errr, -dev packages generally don't (and shouldn't) depend on other -dev packages. If you're trying to push the idea that -dev packages should depend on the -dev packages of libraries they depend on- don't. That's *wrong*, it's the completely wrong approach and should *not* be taken. > 3. d-shlibs provides an infrastracture for generating devlibs:Depends > for debian/control, but it has a long sed rule for replacing -dev > package names; it shoulnd't really neeed them. This doesn't sound quite right either. Looks at 'd-shlibs', it sounds like it's doing the *wrong* thing anyway. > 4. I'm only requesting NEW packages to come under this naming > scheme, we'll try to cover the old packages with some kind of sed > script or replacement rule. Again, not a reason to follow the proposal at all. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature