Re: Debian Packaging problems with KDE 2.1
> * task-kde-devel
> package task-kde-devel doesn't install because it depends on
> xlibs-dev | xlibs6g-dev
>
> It should read xlib6g-dev (no extra 's')
yup typo...fixed
> It suggests qt2.2-doc, but the consistent suggestion is qt-doc (see below).
I can't find any reference to qt2.2-doc in the current task packages.
> * libqt2, libqt-dev, and qt-doc
> the naming is imho inconsistent and counterintuitive, I'd expected the
> packages to be named (like in many other cases):
> libqt2-dev
> qt2-doc
no..this is wrong.
libqt-dev is how the dev package should be. I've been trying very hard to
cleanup this multiple -dev versions problem... There should be only 1
-dev package for a library unless there is very good reason to have more than
one...like the newer version doesn't work on all archs or something like that.
since the library is libqt the -dev package shoudl be libqt-dev. Since you
can have multiple versions of the shared library installed you name the
library package like libqt2 where 2 is equal to the soname. When qt3 comes
out there will be a libqt3 package...however the -dev package will still be
libqt-dev...a developer should always be able to do a apt-get install libqt-dev
and get the latest version.
and for the -doc package..there is no need to have a different verison of the
-doc package for every library..especially since the -doc package is filled
with -devel documentation. thus qt-doc.
This is very intuitive if you follow the Debian model of doing libraries.
> * kdoc
> on 28.2.2001, kdoc was only in binary-powerpc but not in binary-i386 or -all.
very weird...especially since it isn't even in the "main" section on
kde.tdyc.com currently...however I just fixed that.
> * libldap2, libldap2-dev
> There is some inconsequent versioning.
> With KDE 2.0.1 came 2.0.7-0.potato.1
> With KDE 2.1 came 2.0.7-0.potato2
>
> Due to the missing '.' after potato is potato2 considered older than potato.1.
> This causes installation problems (the libldap2-dev of KDE 2.1 requires
> libldap2 potato2, but the dpkg will not upgrade libldap2....)
>
>
> This is probably more a case for Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
no it wouldn't...it's totally a problem on my side which has already been
fixed.
Ivan
--
----------------
Ivan E. Moore II
rkrusty@tdyc.com
http://snowcrash.tdyc.com
GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD
GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Reply to: