On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 16:27 +0200, Wilfried Goesgens wrote: > * Package name : libical0 Although I'm might not be up-to-date on the library naming scheme[0], I'm pretty sure a zero should go on the end of the binary package's name, only the source package, which is what is being asked for above. > The ICal library was originaly maintained by Eric Busboom and Andrea > Campi. Its new Maintainer is Art Cancro. libical is currently not in Debian, but there is an ITP for libical[1] already. Now, looking at this other libical[2], it is clear that it is a "modified" version of the original libical project, where the original libical project is what this ITP is for. So are these two ical libraries both needed in Debian? What is the difference between them? > Its used by the Citadel Project, Kontact and Evolution (in forked > versions). This release contains the patches from the forks. > The Citadel ITP #423911 depends on this. Interestingly, when I asked about the other libical's status in the bug report[1] for another reason, the owner of the bug reported that they were working on libical for Citadel too -- this is the main thing that makes me think that there is no need for two these two versions in Debian, if they both being packaged with Citadel in mind (ie. I assume they both work with Citadel). I hope I'm understanding everything here -- I'm no expert on anything ical-related, otherwise please correct me here! Regards, [0] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html [1] http://bugs.debian.org/404862 [2] http://www.aurore.net/projects/libical/ -- Jonny Lamb, UK jonnylamb@jonnylamb.com http://jonnylamb.com GPG: 0x2E039402
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part