Hi,
> > I'd like to propose, for new -dev packages, to
> > name -dev packages after their runtime library counterparts.
> >
> > If the library package is named lib$NAME,
> > call the -dev package lib$NAME-dev.
> [...]
>
> Hej,
> The obvious downside of this is that the name of dev-package will change
> although the API did not necessarily change. This would increase
> workload for stuff like the current C++ transition and makes backporting
> more difficult.
Thanks for pointing these points out.
My impression is that your point can be addressed as follows:
1. libwhateverXXX-dev can (and in most cases must) provide
(and conflict) with libwhatever-dev,
so the first point is moot.
2. However, versioned depends will suffer, but having a versioned
depends will make moot the problem with backporting and C++ transition.
There may be other showstoppers.
I would really like this 10-year old non-regulation to
go to a concensus (it is indeed rather embarassing we don't
agree on a good solution after 10 years...)
regards,
junichi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
