Re: advise needed for library packaging
On Tuesday 30 December 2008 00:07:34 Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:12:24 +0200
>
> George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> wrote:
> > > http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html
> > > http://bugs.debian.org/libpkg-guide
> > >
> > > Firstly, do you need that library? Nothing in sid seems to depend on
> > > it, not even sleuthkit.
> >
> > Library packages which nobody {build-}depends on yet, sits in the same
> > boat as the rest of the leaf (application) packages, so general rules
> > should apply:
>
> I think that is an error. Libraries are intrinsically harder to package
> correctly and have more implications for the archive than applications.
> e.g. applications don't change binary package name (let alone source
> package name) on a routine basis. A library package without reverse
> dependencies is less useful than a leaf application with more intrinsic
> problems and more hassle, therefore counts as less desirable than a
> leaf application.
Libraries being intrinsically harder to package correctly does not make those
of them with no reverse build dependencies being useless to the users who
would like use them and prefer them in the form of debian packages (just like
any other leaf packages). Currently Debian main contains 1489 -dev packages
with no reverse build-depends found for them. Do you really believe that
these are some sort of massive fallacy (assuming ~10% of them being false
positives and not relevant to the topic like manpages-dev) and waste of
packaging time.
> > > -dev packages should not have SONAMEs in their package names,
>
> ? -dev packages can have SONAMEs in the package name - but in most
> situations, the extra complexity isn't worth it.
>
> > > what is
> > > the reason for the libtsk-dev -> libtsk3-3-dev change? If the API has
> > > changed incompatibly, libtsk-3-dev might be more appropriate.
> >
> > Why is libfoo-X-dev better than libfooX-dev, where 'X' is being some sort
> > of API version discriminator ?
>
> IMHO libtsk-dev should only change to libtsk3-dev - I don't see the
> need for libtsk-3-dev (I suspect you'll get a lintian warning).
> libtsk3-3-dev is only if the upstream API is so unstable that you will
> need a libtsk3-4-dev instead of migrating smoothly to libtsk4.
> Personally, I'd look at the glib and gtk model of libfooN.N rather than
> libfooN-N if there is a good reason to not use libfoo-dev or
> libfooN-dev.
>
> "some sort of API version discriminator" doesn't sound as if you've
> understood SONAME transitions.
... or you better understand [1] that you should avoid keeping SONAME
artifacts in the -dev package names, thus avoid changing -dev package name on
each SONAME bump, which would make release team cry upon transitions, loudly.
[1] these comments from Stephen Frost would help ;-)
http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#ftn.id292176
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: