Re: Seeking advice on packaging of pion-net
On 11880 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> 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.
No matter if you package -net and -common in one or two or four packages
- as you will have something changing in the package name when SONAME
changes, you *will* have a run through NEW. There is no way you can
avoid this, so looking at it from that POV is wasted time. :)
> 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.
Boost is nothing to compare yourself with. And having even source and
-dev versioned is usually unwanted. There are exceptions to that rule,
but usually you do want them unversioned.
> Any advice/insights on this would be appreciated.
Do it right :)