Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bug#708566: library -dev naming policy encourages unnecessary transitions
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Cyril Brulebois
May 16, 2013, 2:40:02 PM5/16/13
to
Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> (16/05/2013):
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: normal
>
> Policy 8.4 currently says:
>
> If there are development files associated with a shared library,
> the source package needs to generate a binary development package
> named librarynamesoversion-dev, or if you prefer only to support one
> development version at a time, libraryname-dev.
>
> This encourages unnecessary transitions since the SONAME may change
> without significant changes to the API, and the latter is what the -dev
> package naming is about. Changing the -dev package name is quite
> disruptive, since it normally requires sourceful uploads of all packages
> that Build-Depend on the library and can't be done with binNMUs.
>
> I think we should instead encourage -dev packages to be unversioned by
> default, much more strongly than we currently do. It's rare that
> supporting multiple versions of the API in the archive at the same time
> is actually required or a good idea. In the rare cases that it is, I
> think the version in the -dev package name should reflect some sort of
> upstream API version, not the SONAME (which is about ABI compatibility).
Absolutely, thanks for your initiative.
Mraw,
KiBi.
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: normal
>
> Policy 8.4 currently says:
>
> If there are development files associated with a shared library,
> the source package needs to generate a binary development package
> named librarynamesoversion-dev, or if you prefer only to support one
> development version at a time, libraryname-dev.
>
> This encourages unnecessary transitions since the SONAME may change
> without significant changes to the API, and the latter is what the -dev
> package naming is about. Changing the -dev package name is quite
> disruptive, since it normally requires sourceful uploads of all packages
> that Build-Depend on the library and can't be done with binNMUs.
>
> I think we should instead encourage -dev packages to be unversioned by
> default, much more strongly than we currently do. It's rare that
> supporting multiple versions of the API in the archive at the same time
> is actually required or a good idea. In the rare cases that it is, I
> think the version in the -dev package name should reflect some sort of
> upstream API version, not the SONAME (which is about ABI compatibility).
Absolutely, thanks for your initiative.
Mraw,
KiBi.
Russ Allbery
May 16, 2013, 2:40:02 PM5/16/13
to
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-686-pae (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
0 new messages