On Thu, Nov 27, 1997 at 03:07:02PM +0800, Philippe Troin wrote: > Having some arguments with someone about dependencies of libraries, > I've posted here to have this sorted out. > > Assume you have: > libfoo libc5 compatibility library > libfoo-altdev libc5 compatibility development package > libfoog libc6 library > libfoog-dev libc6 development. > > Obviously you have: > libfoo-altdev depends on libfoo > libfoog-dev depends on libfoog > (not talking about external dependencies like on libc6, etc...) > > After some discussions a few months ago on debian-devel (or -policy), > some people (I remember David Engel and myself) argued that for some > packages you might also want: > libfoo depends on libfoog
Yes. > libfoo-altdev depends on libfoog-dev I disagreed with this last one. The reason is that it prevents the user from installing another "libfoog-dev" (e.g. libfoo2g-dev) without also removing libfoo-altdev. > Rationale: > > 1) The documentation for foo is there only once in the libfoog > package > and libfoo has a symlink in /usr/doc to libfoog. Additional > support files (like /usr/lib/tclxxx for David's tcl packages) > are there only once in the libfoog package. > > 2) The manpages for the development package are also included only > once in the distribution, in the libfoog package. > > 3) One might argue that we could create additional package. This > would mean creating two extra packages: libfoo-support for the > common runtime files, and libfoo-dev-support for the common > devel files (manpages, etc...). I don't think adding two extra > packages per library is worth, we already just added two: > bo: 2 packages per library > current hamm: 4 packages per library > hamm with this proposal: 6 packages per library Agreed. > 4) The libfoo and libfoo-altdev are *compatibility* package during > the libc5->libc6 transition. Hopefully the final hamm will have > all the old libc5 packages converted to libc6. This means that > the libfoo and libfoo-altdev are unlikely to be installed on a > hamm system. > Even if they are installed on a hamm system, it's likely that > their libc6 counterparts are already there, so these additional > depencies are just a minor annoyance. Right. All of the libfoo-altdev packages should be obsoleted (and possibly the libfoo packages too) in whatever comes after hamm. > Objections, support, welcome. > Could we have this carved in stone somewhere if it's approved ? > Sorry to dig out this again. > > Phil. David -- David Engel ODS Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1001 E. Arapaho Road (972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081
