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

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

On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 11:05:50AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> Michael Alan Dorman <mdorman@debian.org> wrote:
> > 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?
> libgtk1.0-dev and libgtk1.2-dev are not source compatible.

So? How did the versioning help?

(libc6-dev wasn't entirely source compatible between 2.0 and 2.1 --- there
were issues with errno and so forth, eg. Differences in /usr/include/linux
and so on made even bigger differences for linux-specific programs, iirc)


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
        results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
                                        -- Linus Torvalds

Attachment: pgpfWR9_CFNJu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: