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

Re: libbluetooth transition (was: Re: [Pkg-bt] Unnecessary renaming of development package)

Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> I'm bringing this to d-release to have more comments on what is best to do.

Apparantly everyone is waiting for me, though I guess the 'more
comments' is also about more people :-)

> On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 12:34:48AM +0200, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:

>>>> Anyway, is this procedure documented somewhere? It doesn't seem like a good idea
>>>> to have libbluetoothX-dev when soname of the included library is in fact Y, but
>>>> perhaps I'm missing something.
>>> Normally you shouldn't use libfooX-dev, you should use libfoo-dev
>>> instead unless you have a good reason to use libfooX-dev. If one does
>>> use libfooX-dev, one should at least have a time where libfooX-dev and
>>> libfooY-dev are co-installable (both packages in unstable at the same
>>> time), again unless you have a good reason not to do that.
>> I'm not sure if there was a good reason when the package was first created. If
>> that eases things for release team we can just rename it to libbluetooth-dev
>> while we are at it.

No matter what you decide to do, please don't make packages instantly RC
buggy when it's not needed (renaming without Provides).

> so, might it be a good idea to rename libbluetooth2-dev to libbluetooth-dev if
> that eases future transitions?

If it's unlikely that the API will change in the future, than yes it
might be a good idea to rename the package. Though make sure packages
don't get RC buggy because of it.

> also, I'm wondering if a wiki page like TransitionBestPratices might be of any
> help.

Not a bad idea... I made a quick initial page, feel free to correct
things, change layout or add content :-)



Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D
Fingerprint:   D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7   F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: