Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 12:01:50PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: >> > - Since the API changed, shouldn't the -dev package change its name, or >> > is this information in the Library Packaging Guide controversial? Or >> > even if it's generally consensual, should the name still be kept >> > unchanged because plain libpoppler doesn't guarantee any API anyway? > >> Step 1: >> Looks like ideal move would be to create libpoppler0.5-dev; -glib and >> -qt bindings didn't change API, so they could keep their name. > > Six packages build-depend on libpoppler-dev, but I understand that only one > of them is affected by the API change; so it seems my concern about > cost/benefit of changing the package name still applies here.
Two actually, tetex and texlive, since both build the same binary, pdftex. How do you know the others don't have a problem? Has anybody tried to build the others? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)