Re: petsc packages: drop the minor version in package names?
Thinking about it some more, I think I will use this 3-step approach.
We've already got a "libpetsc-dev" in the form of petsc-dev (ought we
to change that?). What I'll do is add the middle libpetsc3.6-dev
package.
Drew
On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 20:43 +0200, Jan Groenewald wrote:
> I think it sounds good and I've seen before
>
> libpetsc-dev -> depend on latest libpetsc3.6-dev
> libpetsc3.6-dev-> depend on latest lbpetsc3.6.x-dev
>
> Users install libpetsc-dev and get the latest, and devs and some
> users can try other versions to test/compare.
>
> Regards,
> Jan
>
>
>
> On 15 March 2016 at 19:43, Graham Inggs <ginggs@debian.org> wrote:
> > 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: