Re: Package separation/naming conventions
Gergely Nagy <email@example.com> writes:
> * Either don't build the part which (build-)depends on non-free, and
> don't ship it at all, then both the source and the resulting binaries
> can be in main.
I will probably go with this option. If one really needs the libpgsbox,
I would create a completely new source package (with the same upstream
tar), and just pack the pgsbox stuff.
So, I would get the following packages:
wcslib ....... source package
libwcs4 ...... shared library
wcslib-dev ... static library and header
wcslib-doc ... API documentation
wcslib-tools . tools built with wcslib
My question is not the naming of the binary packages. The original
library is called "wcslib", and to maximize confusion, there exists
somewhere else another (not compatible, less used) library for the
same task, called "libwcs", which is part of a "wcstools" package.
To avoid naming confusion, I would like to name all packages "wcslib";
however lintian doesn't like my idea to call the shared library package
"wcslib4". Can/should I ignore this warning since I have a reason to do
so? I found some other packages (namely zlib1g) where the package name
does not match the soname.
And if I shall use "libwcs4"; should I then also use "libwcs-dev",
"libwcs-doc" and "libwcs-tools" for the other binary packages?