Re: Bug#669373: RFS: flactag/2.0.1-1 ITP #507876

[Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.com.au>]

On 12/05/12 14:49, Andy Hawkins wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In article <[🔎] 8762c2qyan.fsf@luthien.mhp>,
>            Gergely Nagy<algernon@madhouse-project.org> wrote:
>> Shouldn't the new one be named libmusicbranz4-3 then? Because if the ABI
>> gets bumped to 4, then we'll have libmusicbrainz4.so.4, but it's a
>> different library than 4.so.3, thus, will need a different name anyway.
> 
> As I understand it, the issue is with the -dev package, which will be called
> libmusicbrainz4-dev. There is already a libmusicbrainz4-dev (from the 2.x
> lib if memory serves).


Does the -dev package need the ABI number in the name?

Is it expected that a user can install multiple versions of the headers
concurrently,

    libmusicbrainz4-dev ->  /usr/include/musicbrainz4/*.h

    libmusicbrainz5-dev ->  /usr/include/musicbrainz5/*.h    ?

or should we just have

    libmusicbrainz-dev ->  /usr/include/musicbrainz/*.h    ?

Given that the ABI number will probably be bumped up to 5 anyway,


ABI number = 5
SONAME = libmusicbrainz.so.5
Package version = 4.1.x  or 5.0.x
=> Package name = libmusicbrainz5 and libmusicbrainz5-dev

and filenames:
 libmusicbrainz5_4.1.0-1_amd64.deb
 libmusicbrainz5-dev_4.1.0-1_amd64.deb


(as described in my previous email on 1 May)