On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote: > Paul Wise and I are working on etl, and we've received a bug report > (#354069) about our choice of naming of etl-dev, the only binary package > this source package produces. > etl-dev is a header library -- it only contains C++ header files that > can be used at build time. We are working on two packages which will > build-depend on it. > Is the bug report (#354069) correct? Does policy really say that the > -dev package must be named lib<libraryname>-dev? To me, section 8.4 > seems to say that the name should be <libraryname>-dev. Since the name > of this library is etl, the name would be etl-dev. Can anyone clarify? The name "etl-dev" is fine. Prepending "lib" when there's nothing here named libetl is pointless. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature