[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

naming and relationships of development packages (was: Re: RFS: libvrb -- Virtual Ring Buffer library)

Hash: SHA1


Ming Hua wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:10:32AM +0200, Székelyi Szabolcs wrote:
>> James Westby wrote:
>>>   * Do you need Replaces: libvrb-dev as well?
>> I have seen similar (ie. development) packages with and others without
>> this. Do I?
> If you want to support upgrading for users who use you previous
> unofficial package, and libvrb0-dev ships the same files as libvrb-dev,
> then yes, you need Replaces: (and probably also Conflicts:) libvrb-dev.

There is no libvrb-dev package. It is a virtual package to ensure that
only one development version is installed at a time (Provides + Conflicts).

> I am also curious why did you change the name of the development library
> package in the first place.

See Policy 8.4.

> I know the naming of -dev packages is a
> very controversial topic, so I want to hear your (and other people's)
> opinion.

The soversion is usually added to the -dev package name to be able to
support multiple versions of a library off-line, which means all
versions can be found in the archive, but only one can be installed on
the user's machine. The question is, which mechanism should be used to
accomplish this? Do we need Replaces:? I think Provides and Conflicts is

I'm not sure I understand the example about MTAs in Policy 7.5.2. Why is
Replaces needed at all in this particular case? Is this also valid in
the case of development packages? Why aren't Conflicts + Provides enough?

- --

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: