On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 11:22:52AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Wednesday, June 04, 2014 12:42:19 Harald Sitter wrote: > > foo-data (sourcename based) > > vs. > > libfoo1-data (library +soversion based) > > vs. > > libfoo-data (library without soversion based) > > > > on a related note... what about -dev and -dbg packages? > > > > personally I'd go for libfoo-data by default. if a package has > > multiple libraries it should be foo-data instead though. > > same goes for -dev, although I'll also argue that with multiple libs > > there should either be multiple dev packages or the libs should not be > > split to begin with. personally I don't see the point in splitting kio > > for example. > > > > HS > > Seems fine. I care more that we agree with Debian on this than any > particular > naming scheme.
Debian didn't have straight answers when I asked them. I tossed a coin and chose libfoo5-dbg and libfoo-dev and libfoo-data. I don't think it's practicle or beneficial to split -dev packages if there are multiple libraries but these days the fashion is to split out libraries into their own packages. Jonathan -- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
