Hi Arno, On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 01:19 +0200, Arno Töll wrote: -(snip)- > * Do you really need the minor version in the SONAME (and hence > correctly reflected in the package name)? It is not wrong to do so, but > since your package is new and your both, major and minor version are 0 > you could probably just use the major version instead of an odd name > like librhash0.0. the package name should be in sync with SONAME - no matter what ugly or nice that makes the (binary) package name. There is a naming convention for library packages and not a popularity contest for the nicest naming of a new library package documented in Debian Policy. See http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html for details (first paragraph of 8.1). That being said, as Alexey is the upstream himself he can surely decide what's the most suitable SONAME that will work for his upstream source and Debian package. -- Best regards, Kilian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part