"David I. Lehn" <dlehn@vt.edu> writes: > liba52-dev > liba52-0 > libmpeg2-dev > libmpeg2-0 Looks fine to me. Policy 11.3 would recommend that the packages be called liba520 etc. without the dash, but unless my reading is wrong this is not a strict requirement. Clarity would dictate the use of a delimiter. > I'm thinking that just to be on the safe side I should version the dev > packages too so as to not conflict with, say, version 52 of a liba dev > package. > > liba52-0-dev [...] > libmpeg2-0-dev I think we can safely postpone this until we have a liba nearing the 52nd interface change. (Hell, even libgal will take some months to reach that high a version.) More of a problem is the libmpeg prefix. We currently have a library whose soname is libmpeg.so.1 -- this one could be libmpeg.so.2 soon. Its -dev currently is just libmpeg-dev, but there's no guarantee it will stay unversioned. You should probably go with libmpeg2-0-dev. IMO, you have discoverd a wart in policy. It does not deal well with numbers in library names. With a mapping of soname "lib<name>.so.<major>" to package "lib<name>-<major>" there would be less ambiguity (<name>s ending with dashes should be very rare). -- Robbe
Attachment:
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature