Re: ITP: libsdlmixer1.0
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 02:02:59PM -0500, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
> Christian T. Steigies <cts@debian.org> writes:
>
> > The name has just changed again, the final name is SDL_mixer. Is it
> > ok when I call the source package SDL-mixer1.0 and the resulting
> > libraries libSDL-mixer1.0 and libSDL-mixer1.0-dev? Or should it be
> > libSDLmixer1.0[-dev]?
>
> Whatever you do for the main package name, I would implore you to not
> include the soname in the -dev package name---we've still got people
> building stuff with, for instance, old versions of t1lib because the
> -dev package wasn't automatically updated when the new version of the
> library came out.
You mean http://www.debian.org/~cts/sdlmixer1.0/
libsdl-mixer-dev_1.0.3-1_i386.deb
libsdl-mixer1.0_1.0.3-1_i386.deb
instead of http://www.debian.org/~cts/sdlmixer/
libsdl-mixer1.0-dev_1.0.3-1_i386.deb
libsdl-mixer1.0_1.0.3-1_i386.deb
?
As I understand it, this implies if ever a new version (1.1, 1.2) should
come out, it would no longer be possible to build new packages with the 1.0
libraries only with the new one? This is desired? AFAIK gtk uses a different
approach (even SDL, where SDL mixer is based uppon).
The problem I see is similar to what we are having with ncurses5 right now.
ncruses4-dev vanished, but some maintainers built packages with it. Can not
be recompiled for other arches now... and its set in the Build-Depends, so
this is a problem for porters... but then, the bug reports should urge the
maintainers to switch :-)
Ive never packaged a library before, so I am thankful for every advice.
Christian
Reply to: