[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[PROPOSAL] require unversioned -dev packages (was Re: library package policy for small gnome packages)



Bart Schuller <schuller@lunatech.com> writes:
> I'm going to take over gnome-print from Vincent and I was wondering
> whether to convert it into a proper libgnomeprint2 and -dev
> package. The package is quite small.

We've got separate packages for a lot of small libraries in
gnome---libzvt, libgnome, libgnorba, etc.  Why change. :-)

> Related to this: if I do split it, should I make a versioned -dev
> package or just one "current" development package?

Personally, I think it's smarter to keep the development package
unversioned.  I have what I think is a technical argument:  libjpeg.

libjpeg has used a versioned -dev, and look at a lot of the problems
we've had with libjpeg, where months after the old packages were
updated to new versions with new sonames---meaning theoretically that
stuff shouldn't be compiled with them---we'd still get packages with
deps on them, because the -dev package's versioning prevented the
"correct" version from getting installed automatically.

I just saw this on a new package on the alpha the other day---someone
had an older version of a versioned -dev package installed, and thus
we got a binary compiled against a less-than-latest version of a
library.

I really think it's a bad idea to have versioned -dev packages.  Have
we really had instances where they have given us any real advantage?

Mike.


Reply to: