Hello.
The Ada maintainers are considering a new naming scheme for -dev packages,
where
libada-foo-dev Provides: libada-foo-dev-HASH.
source packages Build-Depend: libada-foo-dev
binary -dev packages Depend: libada-foo-dev-HASH
The intent is similar to the one of shared object versions, but the
name changes often (for example, with the architecture) and is
computed, so virtual packages seem more appropriate.
Policy 3.6 does not disapprove:
... should not use virtual package names (except privately,
amongst a cooperating group of packages) unless they have been
agreed upon and appear in the list of virtual package names.
However politeness recommends to ask for objections before polluting
the package namespace.
Haskell and Ocaml apparently use a similar scheme.
