Your message dated Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:16:04 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Policy 8.2 suggests libraryname-tools, but not
libraryname-utils
has caused the Debian Bug report #486453,
regarding Policy 8.2 suggests libraryname-tools, but not libraryname-utils
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
486453: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=486453
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.0.1
Severity: minor
Hi,
Policy currently reads:
8.2 Shared library support files
[...]
Run-time support programs that use the shared library but are not
required for the library to function or files used by the shared
library that can be used by any version of the shared library
package should instead be put in a separate package. This package
might typically be named libraryname-tools; note the absence of the
soversion in the package name.
However, in practice the -utils suffix for the discussed type of
packages seems to be much more widely used than the -tools suffix that
is suggested by policy 8.2. On my system I get the following results:
$ dpkg -l \*-tools | wc -l
27
$ dpkg -l \*-utils | wc -l
38
I propose a change in the wording of the last sentence, maybe to
something like this:
This package might typically be named libraryname-utils or (at your
option) libraryname-tools; note the absence of the soversion in the
package name.
However, if this would be a real recommendation regarding the package
name for run-time support programs, we would need many transitional
-utils packages poiting to many newly introduced -tools packages in
the archive to become policy compliant. ;)
Cheers,
Fabian
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Am 09.07.2012 02:32, schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
So while I like the empiricism behind it, I don't think this change is
needed or warranted. Would you mind if the bug were closed?
No, I'm fine with it.
Thanks for caring,
- Fabian
--- End Message ---
