Bug#557765: libfishsound1-dev: The -dev package should be named libfishsound-dev
[Ron] > So if you just want to get this off the triage radar, that seems like > the better option to me - unless I'm missing something like there > being an actual ABI change about to happen. My main goal is to get it off the bug list, but bringing it in line with other dev packages in Debian and closer to the recommended practice seem like nice goals too. If no-one insist on the renaming, I agree we just close this bug and do the renaming in the next API change, which given the current activity level with libfishsound most likely is never going to happen. -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen
Bug#557765: libfishsound1-dev: The -dev package should be named libfishsound-dev
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:05:34AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > So, perhaps now is a good time to rename the -dev package? > What do the rest of you think? Any of you have time to follow > up the migration process? I doubt I will any time soon. :( Personally, I don't see much value in gratuitous renaming of packages. The original "bug" reported was: "The -dev package should be named libfishsound-dev, without the 1, so that reverse dependencies don't need to bump their build dependency whenever the ABI changes." And it's now been nearly 8 years, and that fear still hasn't actually come true. It hasn't changed ABI, so it would be a bit ironic to make this be a self-fulfilling prophecy and break the rdeps just to close this bug :) If it ever does change ABI, *that* might be a good time to rename this, but even then, if you don't want coinstallability, you still wouldn't *have* to rename the -dev package from what it is now, so this problem could be avoided that way too. In https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=557765#10, the maintainer at the time wrote: > close 557765 > tags 557765 wontfix but just didn't actually CC the control server with that. So if you just want to get this off the triage radar, that seems like the better option to me - unless I'm missing something like there being an actual ABI change about to happen. Cheers, Ron
Bug#557765: libfishsound1-dev: The -dev package should be named libfishsound-dev
So, perhaps now is a good time to rename the -dev package? What do the rest of you think? Any of you have time to follow up the migration process? I doubt I will any time soon. :( -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen
Bug#557765: libfishsound1-dev: The -dev package should be named libfishsound-dev
Control: tags -1 + patch
[Petter Reinholdtsen]
> A quick search on https://codesearch.debian.net/ indicate that
> at least the following packages need to have their build dependencies
> changed:
>
> roaraudio
> sonic-visualiser
I checked the Sources file in the archive, and these two are the only ones.
> So not too bad, and should be doable with NMUs in an evening. What do the
> rest of you think? Should we drop the idea or go for it?
I believe we should go for it, and propose the following patch:
diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control
index 302a860..147df94 100644
--- a/debian/control
+++ b/debian/control
@@ -24,12 +24,13 @@ Description: simple API that wraps Xiph.Org audio codecs
used in conjunction with liboggz to decode or encode Ogg encapsulated
Vorbis or Speex files.
-Package: libfishsound1-dev
+Package: libfishsound-dev
Section: libdevel
Architecture: any
Depends: libfishsound1 (= ${binary:Version}), ${misc:Depends}, libspeex-dev,
libvorbis-dev, libflac-dev
-Provides: libfishsound-dev
-Conflicts: libfishsound-dev
+Provides: libfishsound1-dev
+Conflicts: libfishsound1-dev
+Replaces: libfishsound1-dev
Description: simple API that wraps Xiph.Org audio codecs (development files)
libfishsound is a wrapper around the existing codec libraries and
provides a consistent, higher-level programming interface. It has been
The idea is to rename and replace the old package, while still providing the old
name used as build dependencies by roaraudio and sonic-visualiser. It should
avoid breaking their builds, and making sure we have some time to get those
packages fixed. Any objections? Did I get the control file right?
--
Happy hacking
Petter Reinholdtsen
Bug#557765: libfishsound1-dev: The -dev package should be named libfishsound-dev
So, six years ago there was a proposal to rename libfishsound1-dev to libfishsound-dev. This sound like a good idea, but will require some work. Is it worth it? A quick search on https://codesearch.debian.net/ indicate that at least the following packages need to have their build dependencies changed: roaraudio sonic-visualiser So not too bad, and should be doable with NMUs in an evening. What do the rest of you think? Should we drop the idea or go for it? Is there a better way to find all packages build-depending on libfishsound1-dev? -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen
Bug#557765: libfishsound1-dev: The -dev package should be named libfishsound-dev
close 557765 tags 557765 wontfix The debian packaging guide says you can do it both ways and there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the right way. I'm going to leave it as is. On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:06:11AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: The -dev package should be named libfishsound-dev, without the 1, so that reverse dependencies don't need to bump their build dependency whenever the ABI changes. Cheers, John -- John Blog http://www.inodes.org LCA2010 http://www.lca2010.org.nz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#557765: libfishsound1-dev: The -dev package should be named libfishsound-dev
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 09:51:01PM +1100, John Ferlito wrote: close 557765 tags 557765 wontfix The debian packaging guide says you can do it both ways and there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the right way. I'm going to leave it as is. You can do it both ways, but which way you should choose depends on the context. If there is no compelling reason not to have a generic -dev package (e.g. API changes), you shouldn't use one. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#557765: libfishsound1-dev: The -dev package should be named libfishsound-dev
Package: libfishsound1-dev Version: 0.9.2-3 Severity: important The -dev package should be named libfishsound-dev, without the 1, so that reverse dependencies don't need to bump their build dependency whenever the ABI changes. -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.31-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
