Re: Package separation/naming conventions
* Ole Streicher <debian-devel@liska.ath.cx>, 2011-09-23, 13:58:
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";
If you believe that shared library name is confusing, then convince
upstream to change it.
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?
You can. You should not. :)
I found some other packages (namely zlib1g) where the package name does
not match the soname.
This is not a very good example. The Debian package name is like this
for historical reasons. (And you don't change shared library package
name without very good reasons, especially not when it has over 1900
reverse dependencies...)
And if I shall use "libwcs4"; should I then also use "libwcs-dev",
"libwcs-doc" and "libwcs-tools" for the other binary packages?
Not necessarily.
--
Jakub Wilk
Reply to: