--- Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The version numbering used upstream is completely > reasonable: > > check the archives for the discussions, non need > to replay them > > again. > > It is not reasonable. The major number of a library > should change IFF there > is a backwards-incompatible change in the library's > binary interface; and the > Debian package name should reflect the major number > of the library. Any other > arrangement, though it may seem 'reasonable' to the > library authors, is a > disaster for people in the real world who have to > work with such libraries > from the outside. The libraries are only supposed to be used to port programs to the upcoming GNOME 2 platform, do you really think we should LART the GNOME developers for this while they are busy trying to bring it out?
> > Note that probably all the gtk 1.3.x releases will > be incompatible, > > so the package names should include also the micro > number. > > If they want to call the upstream package 'gtk > 1.3.x' to indicate where in the > development cycle they are, that's fine; but the > library soname should not be > governed by marketing, and upstream /should/ be > LARTed for this. > *sigh* perhaps not such a good idea, packaging preview-type packages for Debian. Note that both Red Hat and Mandrake seems to have no difficulty just calling the packages (lib)gtk+2 and (lib)glib2 - if you link against them you should be ready to take the flak if the interfaces change anyway. On a side note, who do I contact to remove myself from the new maintainer application process? Regards, Michel ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
