Re: Should -dev and -dbg libary packages depend on ${Source-Version}?
In article <[🔎] ytt7lx67q32.fsf@gilgamesh.cse.ucsc.edu>, Ben Gertzfield <che@debian.org> writes:
James> BTW: this isn't quite right; the source version doesn't
James> necessarily match the version number of the binary packages
James> (e.g. bash && libreadline). Some allowance must be made for
James> this.
> Ahh, so how does this work? If I write up an amendment to Policy
> (would this be appropriate for Policy, as opposed to the Packaging
> Manual? I'm not sure.)
> How would I best include an exemption for packages like this?
Well, rather than making an exemption, the point is pretty simple:
If a package depends on a specific version of a -dev or lib*
pacakge, that dependancy should be reflected in the control file.
The important issue here, Ben, is not that the Debian package versions
match, but that the real dependancies of the software are reflected in
the Debian metadata. The upstream version number of a package, and
even more so the Debian version number, has no direct bearing on the
SO_VERSION (shared library version number). This mapping is
accomplished, normally, though shlibs.local.
Now here's a real life example. Package 'sp' depends on the right
SO-VER (not debian source version) of a it's shlibs, 'libsp1'.
'libsp1-dev' depends on the actual debian source version of 'libsp1'
(not sure if that's actually necessary, but it doesn't hurt). So:
<apharris@burrito:devel-ref> dpkg -s libsp1-dev | grep Depends
Depends: libsp1 (= 1.3.3-1.2.1-1), libc6-dev, libstdc++-dev
<apharris@burrito:devel-ref> dpkg -s sp | grep Depends
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.0.7u), libstdc++2.9, libsp1 (>= 1.2-1)
Does policy really need to be re-written to state this?
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: