On 15 March 2016 at 12:14, Drew Parsons <[email protected]> wrote: > But I'm not certain that anything is gained by having parallel > installations for a library with the same soname. It could be done, > e.g. libpetsc3.6-dev could be a virtual package that depends on the > latest libpetsc3.6.x-dev. But would that provide any real benefit? It > seems to me that using libpetsc3.6-dev as the dev package would be > simpler.
Why not simply libpetsc-dev?
