Andreas Beckmann <a...@debian.org> writes: > On 2013-05-15 09:58, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> The '2' in libgd2-dev is from 2.x.x, and not from the SONAME to reflect >> the API version (1 vs 2). > Which is, at least, confusing, as it is different elsewhere. And > violates Policy Chapter 8. Policy is wrong here. If there are development files associated with a shared library, the source package needs to generate a binary development package named librarynamesoversion-dev, or if you prefer only to support one development version at a time, libraryname-dev. As written, this requires one to either use a non-versioned -dev package or to change the -dev package name with every SONAME change. We do not want developers to do the latter. It results in a bunch of unnecessary transitions. The -dev package name should only be changed when the API actually changes in significant ways and multiple co-installable -dev packages are desirable. I wonder if this Policy wording is what's caused several ill-advised -dev package renamings. I'll file a bug against Policy. I'm not sure what we *do* want to say. I'm inclined to say that the version in the -dev package name should be some meaningful version chosen by the packager (possibly based on the upstream version) that will change when the API changes in such a way as to make multiple -dev packages desirable. But we can talk it over in the Policy bug. > libgd2-3 would be acceptable, an acceptable -dev package would probably > be libgd2-3 dev. libgd2-3 is wrong unless the library SONAME was libgd2.so.3. The library name is libgd and the SONAME is libgd.so.3, so the package name should be libgd3. See Policy 8.1 on the naming syntax. > [Another interesting case where SOVERSION does not match VERSION is the > (correctly named) package pair libtiff4 and libtiff5, built from tiff3 > (3.x) and tiff (4.x)] I have another pair myself (libsaml2-dev and libsaml7), and I don't believe that naming wrong, although I could be convinced otherwise. >> I was thinking about renaming the shared package to libgd3, but it > But this would be the right thing to do. >> would be quite confusing to have libgd2-dev to go with libgd3. > But paring libgd-dev with libgd3 sounds fine. > Andreas > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/519348e5.8020...@debian.org -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87obcc6vas....@windlord.stanford.edu