Re: Upcoming libgd2-{xpm,noxpm}-dev -> libgd2-dev transition
Andreas Beckmann <anbe@debian.org> writes:
> On 2013-05-15 09:58, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> The '2' in libgd2-dev is from 2.x.x, and not from the SONAME to reflect
>> the API version (1 vs 2).
> Which is, at least, confusing, as it is different elsewhere. And
> violates Policy Chapter 8.
Policy is wrong here.
If there are development files associated with a shared library, the
source package needs to generate a binary development package named
librarynamesoversion-dev, or if you prefer only to support one
development version at a time, libraryname-dev.
As written, this requires one to either use a non-versioned -dev package
or to change the -dev package name with every SONAME change. We do not
want developers to do the latter. It results in a bunch of unnecessary
transitions. The -dev package name should only be changed when the API
actually changes in significant ways and multiple co-installable -dev
packages are desirable.
I wonder if this Policy wording is what's caused several ill-advised -dev
package renamings.
I'll file a bug against Policy.
I'm not sure what we *do* want to say. I'm inclined to say that the
version in the -dev package name should be some meaningful version chosen
by the packager (possibly based on the upstream version) that will change
when the API changes in such a way as to make multiple -dev packages
desirable. But we can talk it over in the Policy bug.
> libgd2-3 would be acceptable, an acceptable -dev package would probably
> be libgd2-3 dev.
libgd2-3 is wrong unless the library SONAME was libgd2.so.3. The library
name is libgd and the SONAME is libgd.so.3, so the package name should be
libgd3. See Policy 8.1 on the naming syntax.
> [Another interesting case where SOVERSION does not match VERSION is the
> (correctly named) package pair libtiff4 and libtiff5, built from tiff3
> (3.x) and tiff (4.x)]
I have another pair myself (libsaml2-dev and libsaml7), and I don't
believe that naming wrong, although I could be convinced otherwise.
>> I was thinking about renaming the shared package to libgd3, but it
> But this would be the right thing to do.
>> would be quite confusing to have libgd2-dev to go with libgd3.
> But paring libgd-dev with libgd3 sounds fine.
> Andreas
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] 519348E5.8020100@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 519348E5.8020100@debian.org
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: