Hello Bill, Bill Allombert [2010-02-14 10:18 +0100]: > The first step is to fix packages that Depend on 'libjpeg62-dev'. They should > Depend on 'libjpeg-dev' instead. Please do not make them Depend on > 'libjpeg8-dev', or 'libjpeg-dev|libjpeg62-dev' or 'libjpeg-dev|libjpeg8-dev' or > other combinaisons since this is useless and can only cause problem is the > future. This sounds wrong, though. So far it has been good practice (and lintian complains about it, too) to specify a real dependency first, and only then a virtual alternative; and for libraries it seems like an abuse of virtual packages to me in the first place: * If these were, and are expected to, keep API backwards compatibility, the binary package should be called libjpeg-dev, without any virtual packages. Then a simple binNMU would be enough. * If/once they break API, they should get a name like libjpeg8-dev, but then of course a virtual libjpeg-dev would be wrong. Thanks, and have a nice weekend, Martin P.S. Please keep me in CC, I'm not subscribed. -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature