Re: petsc packages: drop the minor version in package names?
On 15 March 2016 at 12:14, Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian.org> wrote:
> But I'm not certain that anything is gained by having parallel
> installations for a library with the same soname. It could be done,
> e.g. libpetsc3.6-dev could be a virtual package that depends on the
> latest libpetsc3.6.x-dev. But would that provide any real benefit? It
> seems to me that using libpetsc3.6-dev as the dev package would be
> simpler.
Why not simply libpetsc-dev?
Reply to: