Re: Bug#344686: fixed in cyrus-sasl-2.1 2.1.22-0~pre01
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:44:13PM +0300, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> The package names were chosen with the help of the library packaging guide
> without much consideration of the old names.
If the library packaging guide recommends this particular naming scheme for
binary packages related to libraries which do not actually contain shared
libraries, then I think that packaging guide needs to be fixed. (I was
aware of the -dev naming convention that the library packaging guide
recommends, which I also disagree with, but didn't realize such
recommendations would extend to support packages.)
> At the time (January this year) there were no objections -- apparently it
> didn't stand out as such a critical issue.
It stands out to me now that I'm aware of it.
> Would your objection stand if we were further away from releasing?
Yes, it would.
> Anyway, we'll of course follow your advice and rename the packages
> (thanks to Andreas M. for working out the details) -- but I hope you
> understand the reasons for wanting to do things right and according to
> available documentation.
The library packaging guide is not, AFAIK, official Debian documentation;
it's a set of recommendations written from the perspective of one particular
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.