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

Bug#347581: debian-policy: Explicitly permit *-headers binary package created from library source package



"Kevin B. McCarty" <kmccarty@Princeton.EDU> writes:

> Brian Nelson wrote:
>
>> It's not clear to me that splitting out the headers is actually a good
>> thing (it's very annoying for autobuilders since the corresponding -dev
>> package won't be installable until the new version has been autobuilt),
>> so I certainly don't think policy should endorse it.
>
> It wouldn't be an endorsement, just a permission.  It seems to me that
> policy currently prohibits -headers packages for shared libraries by
> saying that development files must be in the -dev package.  Do you feel
> -headers packages _should_ be explicitly prohibited?

Sure, I don't see any advantage to having them.

> My main motive in making the suggestion is that when the headers are
> architecture-independent and there are a lot of them, splitting them out
> into a separate arch:all package can save a lot of archive space.  (I
> don't know what the motive was of the developers who created packages
> like libqt3-headers, which are arch:any.)

Get:1 http://rubeus sid/main libqt3-headers 3:3.3.5-3 [364kB]
Fetched 364kB in 1s (226kB/s)

I wouldn't call 364kB a lot of saved archive space, and you'd be
hard-pressed to find a package with more headers than Qt.

>> "Kevin B. McCarty" <kmccarty@Princeton.EDU> writes:
>>>CC'ed to debian-devel in case anyone wants to add to or disagree with
>>>this suggestion.
>> 
>> Uh, no it's not.
>
> For "CC'ed" read "X-Debbugs-CC'ed".  The web archive of the mailing list
> hasn't been updated since early this morning (as of this writing), but
> you can see my email in the gated newsgroup, for instance on Google
> Groups, http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.devel .
> If it isn't showing up to debian-devel email subscribers, something
> strange is going on (I read the list through the web archive so I don't
> know whether or not this is the case).

Oh, I guess the mail I replied to hadn't been processed by the submit
bot then.  My mistake.

-- 
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.



Reply to: