Bug#146786: marked as done (debhelper: deb packages should contain SONAME)
Your message dated Fri, 17 May 2002 15:31:34 -0400
with message-id <[🔎] 20020517193134.GD31296@kitenet.net>
and subject line Bug#146786: debhelper: deb packages should contain SONAME
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 12 May 2002 23:16:18 +0000
>From samc@superduper.net Sun May 12 18:16:18 2002
Return-path: <samc@superduper.net>
Received: from mail5.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.20]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 1772Ze-0003A9-00; Sun, 12 May 2002 18:16:18 -0500
Received: from modem-355.babbelas.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.133.99] helo=magicboy.superduper.net)
by mail5.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
id 1772ZZ-0004jz-00
for submit@bugs.debian.org; Mon, 13 May 2002 00:16:15 +0100
Received: from samc by magicboy.superduper.net with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1772ZW-00014N-00; Mon, 13 May 2002 00:16:10 +0100
From: Sam Clegg <samc@superduper.net>
Subject: debhelper: deb packages should contain SONAME
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Mailer: bug 3.3.10.1
Message-Id: <E1772ZW-00014N-00@magicboy.superduper.net>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 00:16:10 +0100
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Package: debhelper
Version: 4.0.2
Severity: wishlist
Aren't dev packages supposed to contain the SONAME:
libfoo0-dev (rather than libfoo-dev)
And then:
Conflicts: libfoo-dev
Provides: libfoo-dev
At least this is what the libpkg-guide says.
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Kernel Version: Linux magicboy 2.5.14 #1 Thu May 9 22:19:42 BST 2002 i686 unknown
Versions of the packages debhelper depends on:
ii binutils 2.12.90.0.1-4 The GNU assembler, linker and binary utiliti
ii debconf-utils 1.0.32 debconf utilities
ii dpkg-dev 1.9.20 Package building tools for Debian
ii file 3.37-3.1 Determines file type using "magic" numbers
ii fileutils 4.1-10 GNU file management utilities
ii html2text 1.3.0.1-1 An advanced HTML to text converter.
ii perl 5.6.1-7 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction and Report
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 146786-done) by bugs.debian.org; 17 May 2002 19:32:46 +0000
>From joey@kitenet.net Fri May 17 14:32:46 2002
Return-path: <joey@kitenet.net>
Received: from (kitenet.net) [208.27.22.224] (postfix)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 178nT4-0005lZ-00; Fri, 17 May 2002 14:32:46 -0500
Received: by kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 500)
id C3823BC02F; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:31:34 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:31:34 -0400
From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
To: Sam Clegg <samc@superduper.net>, 146786-done@bugs.debian.org,
debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#146786: debhelper: deb packages should contain SONAME
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20020517193134.GD31296@kitenet.net>
Reply-To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
References: <E1772ZW-00014N-00@magicboy.superduper.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E1772ZW-00014N-00@magicboy.superduper.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Delivered-To: 146786-done@bugs.debian.org
Sam Clegg wrote:
> Aren't dev packages supposed to contain the SONAME:
>
> libfoo0-dev (rather than libfoo-dev)
>
> And then:
>
> Conflicts: libfoo-dev
> Provides: libfoo-dev
>
> At least this is what the libpkg-guide says.
Why is this bug report filed on debhelper, which merely uses whatever
package names you give it?
To answer your question, it is appropriate to use libfoo-dev as a
package name if you intend to only ever support installing one version
of a -dev package at a time. Since it's easy enough to work things out
later if you change your mind (by introducing a libfoo2-dev), I'd
recommend starting with libfoo-dev, but that is up to the discretion of
the individual maintainer.
See policy 11.3, paragraph 3. I don't know what this libpkg-guide is,
but it needs to be fixed to not contradict policy.
--
see shy jo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: