Quoting Nicolas Boulenguez (2023-07-12 15:55:09) > The Ada maintainers are considering a new naming scheme for -dev packages, > where > libada-foo-dev Provides: libada-foo-dev-HASH. > source packages Build-Depend: libada-foo-dev > binary -dev packages Depend: libada-foo-dev-HASH > The intent is similar to the one of shared object versions, but the > name changes often (for example, with the architecture) and is > computed, so virtual packages seem more appropriate. > > Policy 3.6 does not disapprove: > ... should not use virtual package names (except privately, > amongst a cooperating group of packages) unless they have been > agreed upon and appear in the list of virtual package names. > However politeness recommends to ask for objections before polluting > the package namespace. > > Haskell and Ocaml apparently use a similar scheme. I have no objections to this - it sounds like a good approach. Just want to point out that experience from Rust packaging indicates that general Debian tooling does a weaker job at dependency resolving for vritual packages, which (for Rust libraries) causes breakages of reverse dependencies, and may even (not quite sure) lead to breakage of testing due to libraries with unsatisfied (dependencies) migrating. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature