Re: tiff 4.x (libtiff5) transition

[Jay Berkenbilt <qjb@debian.org>]

Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> wrote:

> Your plan looks good except that I think it would be better to have
> libtiff5-dev provide libtiff-dev and not introduce a proper libtiff-dev.

Thanks for the reply.  That's fine, I can make that modification.
Rereading my plan all the way through, I think having libtiff5-dev
provide libtiff-dev instead of renaming it requires small and obvious
changes and also means that people who depend on libtiff5-dev don't
technically have to change their packages.  I'd still rather have people
build depend on libtiff-dev.  Most of my arguments for not having
libtiff5-dev were based on potential future transitions, which are not
all that likely to happen.  That said, I do use unversioned dev package
names for all my other library packages, and if I were packaging tiff
from scratch today, I would probably do it that way.  But I don't feel
strongly, so I can and will go with your modification unless someone
tells me not to.

I am assuming this is not an invitation to proceed yet, right?  I am
holding off on doing it until I actually get an explicit go-ahead.  If
I'm supposed to take this as a green light, please let me know.

-- 
Jay Berkenbilt <qjb@debian.org>