On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 01:45:07PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> For the package
> supporting the library I plan to append the suffix -[LIBRARY SHORT NAME]. Concerning the other one,
> I am wondering if -bare or -pure (or something) would be a better choice than -no[LIBRARY SHORT NAME].
> What do you think ? Any hint is welcome.
Why not just calling the "slimmer" one without any prefix?
So you'd have (assuming a SONAME of "foo1"):
* libfoo1 => regular library most people would want
* libfoo1-something => library engrossed of the heavy lib/feature
Given that you say the most of the users would not be interested on the
pumped one, I see no reason to highlight the absence of the "something"
in the other one.
PS: if the ABI on the libfoo1-something is compatible with libfoo1 (at
least for the non-something bits), remember to add a Provides:libfoo1 on
it, so packages not needed the "something" could link against simple
libfoo1, but users needed that application but also the "something" can
install libfoo1-something and the rdep package dependencies can be
satisfied by it.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature