Re: shared library -dev package naming proposal
[once more, doesn't belong on -release...]
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:11:21PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Junichi Uekawa (email@example.com) wrote:
> > > * Junichi Uekawa (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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.
It's more or less mandatory for libtool-based packages, due to a historical
misfeature of libtool; it's the only way to ensure static libs from any
particular -dev package are in a usable state; and it's essential when use
of the -dev package depends on the availability of headers from other -dev
That's not a very strong rationale for the proposed policy, but the -dev
dependencies themselves are (unfortunately) warranted.