[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Package separation/naming conventions

* Ole Streicher <debian-devel@liska.ath.cx>, 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 packages:

- libwcs4 and libwcs4-dev
- libpgsbox4 and libpgsbox4-dev

containing the shared libs resp. the static libs+headers of the two libraries

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 probably don't.)

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 versa?

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 packages).

Jakub Wilk

Reply to: