Re: Package separation/naming conventions
Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
> Le Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 04:13:42PM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit :
>> the "wcslib" exists under this name already for some years, and is
>> always referenced under this name. Changing the name to libwcs would
>> confuse people with the older libwcs library (which is incompatible).
> Dear Ole,
>
> although it looks ugly, perhaps you can consider calling your binary
> packages libwcslib4, libwcslib-dev, libwcslib-doc and wcslib-util.
The first problem is that the library package should be called after its
SONAME, and I dont want to change the SONAME because I would break the
linking of existing programs. This is the reason why the library package
is going to be called "libwcs4".
For the -dev and -doc packages, I see no reason to add a second "lib" to
their name: why "libwcslib" is better than "wcslib"? These names differ
from the library SONAME anyway.
> As you noted, users are unlikely to have to install libwcslib by hand.
> Developers will find libwcslib-dev easily with apt-cache, and the
> description of your package will present its contents clearly.
Yes, that's why it may be not so ugly to have a different name for the
library.
Best regards
Ole
Reply to: