libcwd: one or two packages?

[Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>]

Hello all,
I'm the author of libcwd. In the past Martin Krafft
has been the debian maintainer of this package.
However, he stopped using it and the version on debian
is lagging a bit.

In the meantime, I started to use debian myself, and
I added amd64 support to libcwd - all the more reason
to upgrade libcwd on debain again.

Martin proposed that I'd become the package maintainer,
with him as sponsor, and I accepted. The following are
some questions that I have:

As is described in
<URL REMOVED>/libpkg-guide.html
a shared library should exist of two (binary) packages:
libfooX and libfoo-dev.

However, the argumentation of that rule is based
on the assumption that there exist other packages
that link against those libraries.

This is not the case for libcwd. Consider the following facts:

- No application (or library) is linked against libcwd
  and then distributed: there will never exist
  (binary) packages that link against libcwd.

- Libcwd itself makes sure that an application that
  was compiled with libcwd version x.y.z, will also
  only be used (runtime linked) with version x.y.z
  (if that is not the case, a message is printed
  and the application core dumps on purpose).

In otherwords, logic dictates that there will be only a
single (binary) package for libcwd.

I'm convinced that this is the logical thing to do
and will be the least confusing. I'm just posting here
to see how much resistance I'd run into ;)

There will be a source package of course, and then
libcwd-doc with the documentation, and just 'libcwd'
as the package that developers need to debug their
C++ applications under test.

Looking forward to your comments,
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>