Andy Hawkins <a...@gently.org.uk> wrote:
>Hi, > >On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:26:04AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> I agree that this is valid and that these libs/pkgs can co-exist > >> My preference would be for the soname libmusicbrainz.so.5, is there >any >> outright reason to avoid the other way of doing it, or it is largely >at >> the discretion of upstream in each case? > >I think I'd prefer libmb5.so...., as it maintains consistency with the >libmb3 packages. > I think the previous pattern is not so helpful and we can also look at it in a slightly different perspective, consistency with the pattern used by other libs >It's also clearer to the person installing it exactly what they're >getting. >Otherwise, the libmb3 packages would have been called libmusicbrainz-6, >which doesn't obviously tell them which version of the API they're >installing. > Not quite, that previous package should have had SONAME libmusicbrainz.so.6 and pkg name libmusicbrainz6(-dev) - at least that is what my impression is after reading the lib packaging guide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/6cadfbdb-30c7-4bfb-a8e8-309399155...@email.android.com
