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

Re: Section of -dev packages

Hash: SHA1

On 17 May 2006, at 10:46 pm, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:

I found this more instructive:

$ apt-cache search -n .\*-dev\$ | sed 's/ -.*//' | xargs apt-cache show
| grep \^Section: | sort | uniq -c
      1 Section: admin
      1 Section: comm
      3 Section: contrib/libdevel
    256 Section: devel
      5 Section: doc
      1 Section: electronics
      1 Section: games
      3 Section: gnome
      3 Section: graphics
      6 Section: interpreters
      3 Section: kde
   1379 Section: libdevel

... etc

In other words, on a Sarge system (with backports), over 93% of the
packages (the total is 1757) report themselves as being in devel or
libdevel.  On the whole, I would say that is pretty good.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment:

I would have said there is sometimes an argument for a development package not being in devel, but rather being in the same section as its 'parent' program; one could think of devel and libdevel as being for general purpose programming tools and libraries. There could be examples where the development files are only really relevant in some extremely specialised context (for example some scientific application or other) and cluttering up the devel and libdevel sections with them just adds noise to those sections.

I'm not saying I actually agree with this, but I can see an argument for it.

A case in point might be libamu4-dev, a package for which I am the maintainer. This contains development files for libamu4, the core libraries of the BSD automounter. It is in libdevel, as you'd expect. I find it hard to believe that anyone actually uses these (I don't have any practical need for them, and I'm the package maintainer!) - they're there in case people want to, but I suspect it's a package needed or wanted by a vanishingly small number of people, and it certainly doesn't count as a general purpose programming library. Does it really need to be staring people in the face in the libdevel section?


Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin)


Reply to: