Re: Package separation/naming conventions
* Ole Streicher <email@example.com>, 2011-09-22, 09:51:
- libwcs4 and libwcs4-dev
- libpgsbox4 and libpgsbox4-dev
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.
So I would just create a common wcslib-dev package, correct?
And, which dependencies should the wcslib-dev package have?
A -dev package should have a strict versioned dependency on all the
shared libraries it provides .so symlink for.
libpgsbox.a would contain references to pgplot5; which is non-free, old
Wait, you link *statically* to a non-free library? That'd make your
binary package contain non-free bits, and as a consequence the whole
source package would have to go to non-free.
Also, now I notices that (at least according to your ITP), libwcs is
licensed under the GPLv3+. We can't legally distribute GPLed software
linked (statically or dynamically) to non-free stuff!
Or is the link here made with the "suggests/enhances" dependency? And
what would then suggest what? libwcs4-dev suggests wcslib-doc, or
You can use both. Or none. Users will find out which package they need
anyway, so don't worry about it. :)
How would they do that?
"apt-cache search"? :)