Re: Package separation/naming conventions
* Ole Streicher <email@example.com>, 2011-09-21, 16:42:
I am currently packaging the "wcslib" package (Bug #641624) as my first
Debian package, and I am wondering about the naming conventions. The
package contains two libraries, some tools and an common API
documentation for both libraries. I would now make the following binary
- libwcs4 and libwcs4-dev
- libpgsbox4 and libpgsbox4-dev
containing the shared libs resp. the static libs+headers of the two
First of all, don't version your -dev package(s), unless you want to
keep multiple versions of it in the archive at the same people. (You
Also, unless there's good reason to separate -dev package, I'd create
just a single one.
First question is now, Is it wise to call a package containing
documentation for libwcs4 "wcslib-doc"?
Sounds good to me.
Or is the link here made with the "suggests/enhances" dependency? And
what would then suggest what? libwcs4-dev suggests wcslib-doc, or vice
You can use both. Or none. Users will find out which package they need
anyway, so don't worry about it. :)
Second question: libpgsbox4 depends on a package that is in non-free
(pgplot5), and one of the (three) programs that are in wcslib-tools
depend on libpgsbox4. Should I divide wcslib-tools into two packages
like the following?
- libwcs4-tools (two small executable)
- libpgsbox4-tools (one small executable)
That make sense (except there's probably no need to version *-tools