Re: virtual/alternative B-D (was Re: libtiff5 transition)
On 2013-12-06, Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> wrote:
> Hm indeed. Makes me wonder whether it would not be better to make
> libtiff-dev the real package and abandon libtiffN-dev altogether.
> (Never understood why the -dev packages need the numbers, anyway.)
The -dev packages needs numbers if you want to have several around at
the same time.
Having the unversioned -dev package be a virtual package worksr fine as
long as
1) no one will need a versioned dependency on the unversioned virtual
dev package
2) only one package is providing the virtual package at a time.
Yes. 2) is theoretically racy. but from a practical purpose, the race is
irrelevant.
/Sune
Reply to: