I am packaging pion-net [0], which is currently at version 2.1.8. Once built, the SONAMEs of the two shared library packages are: libpion-net-2.1.8.so libpion-common-2.1.8.so According to the Debian Library Packaging Guide [1], with SONAMEs like that, the packages should be named libpion-net-2.1.8 and libpion-common-2.1.8. However, I am not certain what the "best" way to handle this is. I am currently thinkging of naming the packages like this: Source: pion-net Binary: libpion-net-dev, libpion-net-2.1.8, libpion-common-2.1.8, libpion-net-2.1.8-dbg, libpion-common-2.1.8-dbg, libpion-net-doc The problem, as I see it, with this arrangement is, that when a new upstream released, like 2.1.9, then four of the package names will change, resulting in the need for the new upstream to pass NEW processing. I don't currently plan to package and reverse dependencies. However, that is not to say that someone else will not in the future. I have looked at how some other packages handle it (e.g., boost), but they version even the -dev package and source package, so that each new upstream release results in a new source package. I'm not sure if that approach would work or is appropriate for this package. Any advice/insights on this would be appreciated. Regards, -Roberto [0] http://bugs.debian.org/547607 [1] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature