Re: Should -dev and -dbg libary packages depend on ${Source-Version}?
In article <[🔎] yttvhkob69w.fsf@gilgamesh.cse.ucsc.edu>, Ben Gertzfield <che@debian.org> writes:
> Unfortunately, the Packaging Manual states the opposite of this:
> (chapter 12)
> Firstly, your package should install the shared libraries under
> their normal names. For example, the libgdbm1 package should install
> libgdbm.so.1.7.3 as /usr/lib/libgdbm.so.1.7.3.
> (snip)
> Secondly, your package should include the symlink that ldconfig
> would create for the shared libraries. For example, the libgdbm1
> package should include a symlink from /usr/lib/libgdbm.so.1 to
> libgdbm.so.1.7.3.
> (snip)
> Thirdly, the development package should contain a symlink for the
> shared library without a version number. For example, the
> libgdbm1-dev package should include a symlink from
> /usr/lib/libgdm.so to libgdm.so.1.7.3.
This, this looks like a geniune buglet in the Packaging Manual, since
the Packaging Manual examples, even, should use best practices...
As for the depends, I like the *tight* coupling between lib*-dev and
lib* packages since I think it's kinda evil to use a -dev that's not
the exact version of the runtime lib we're using.
Some other people agree:
<apharris@burrito:apharris> dpkg -s libc6-dev | grep Depends
Depends: libc6 (= 2.0.7u-4), gcc (>= 2.7.2.3-1)
<apharris@burrito:apharris> dpkg -s libjpeg62-dev | grep Depends
Depends: libjpeg62 (= 6b-1.1), libc6-dev
<apharris@burrito:apharris> dpkg -s liblockfile-dev | grep Depends
Depends: liblockfile0 (= 0.1-5)
Some do not:
<apharris@burrito:apharris> dpkg -s libncurses4-dev | grep Depends
Depends: libncurses4, libc6-dev
<apharris@burrito:apharris> dpkg -s libproc-dev | grep Depends
Depends: libc6-dev, procps (>> 1:1.2.9-0), procps (<< 1:1.2.10-0)
<apharris@burrito:apharris> dpkg -s libstdc++2.9-dev | grep Depends
Depends: libstdc++2.9 (>= 2.91.58), libc6-dev
But should it be policy? Are those who don't have the '=' depedancy
committing bugs? I don't think so, necessarily. Though
libncurses4-dev looks odd...!
Like I said, the package dependancies should simply reflect actual
dependancies, which vary from situation to situation. So for this
matter, I say, no policy change needed.
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: