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 :-) Cheers Luk -- 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