* Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-31 12:51]: > On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:50:58 am Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > Notice that the binary package is now called libmtp5. > > It's great to see someone who knows what they are doing pick this up and run > with it. However, I wonder if naming the binary package after the so name is > the right course of action. > > I refer you to the following post on the libmtp mailing list: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=31351176&forum_id=48918 > > While obviously a joke, I don't know if upstream has decided on a > consistent so name, er, strategy. Would it be better to just keep the > binary package as libmtp so that end users don't have to hunt around for > the correct package should upstream continue to be a moving target?
Well, in the libmtp mailing list post you refer above, the developers seem to be correctly coping with the SONAME now. It should not be a problem in the future. In any event, calling the binary package libmtp is against Policy: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#naminglibpkg > As a final thought, it would be great to get a package that includes all of > the example tools that are distributed by upstream... things like > mtp-detect, and so on. Any change you could put together a "mtp-tools" > package? This is a good idea and creating the new mtp-tools package is a no-brainer. However, in order to be Policy-compliant we will have to provide man pages for all those commands. Painful... -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]