Re: renaming a package
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 16:34:54 +0200 (CEST),
Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> > I prefer libglut3-dev .
> We should make versioned -dev (binary) packages the exception, not the norm.
> libglut-dev is better. Think about libglut3-dev, libglut4-dev,
> libglut5-dev etc. and how libglut-dev makes upgrades much easier.
1. libfoo1 is compiled with libglut3 (that is, libglut-dev)
2. bar is compiled with libfoo1
3. libfoo1 is recompiled with libglut4 (that is, again, libglut-dev)
4. old bar does not work with new libfoo1
5. the maintainer of libfoo1 gets flamed because he/she is careless
when using libglut-dev, though there is no good[1] way to specify
a build-dependency to avoid this flame before libglut4 is released
(that is, without knowing the version number of libglut-dev for libglut4)
[1]
Build-Depends: libglut-dev (= something) is suboptimal, and the fast way
to get a FTBTS bug
--
Oohara Yuuma <oohara@libra.interq.or.jp>
Debian developer
PGP key (key ID F464A695) http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/pub-key.txt
Key fingerprint = 6142 8D07 9C5B 159B C170 1F4A 40D6 F42E F464 A695
her occasionally near suicidal sense of loyal self-sacrifice
--- Luke Seubert, about what Rei Ayanami and Debian developers have in common
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: