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

Re: shared library -dev package naming proposal

* 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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: