* Frank K?ster (frank@debian.org) wrote: > It seems you are packaging a library - you might want to have a look at > > http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html Take this with more than a grain of salt- it's imperfect to say the least. First off- the section about -DEV package dependencies is *very* wrong. Adding unnecessary -dev dependencies is wrong and completely the wrong solution to the problem of linking against multiple versions of a package. The package which is being linked in twice needs to be rebuilt with versioned symbols. You should *not* have a build-depend of: Build-Depend: libpackage[SONAME-version-number]-dev | libpackage-dev That's not something we should ever advise. As for the build-depend on libpackage-dev- that's not just 'not optimal' it's *broken* and shouldn't ever be used, if that's all the package provides then talk to the maintainer and get him/her to fix it. 'How to fix upstream packages with somewhat broken SONAMEs' isn't really accurate- it's 'How to brokenly deal with very broken upstream SONAMEs'. Unfortunately, there's not much choice. We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just life. .la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain broken. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature