Hi, On Wed, 23 May 2007, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> it was recently (in bugreport 277317) brought to my attention that we > have three packages containing development files, but not being named > with a "-devel" suffix: > > wnn-sdk This is not a subpackage of something, but really a package in it's own. IOW upstream calls it like so, we shouldn't differ without good reasons, so this name would be IMO okay. > OpenOffice_org-sdk > xorg-x11-server-sdk About these I'm less sure. The xorg-x11-server-sdk indeed only contains stuff you usually would expect from your random -devel package. In one way it's different: this package is for developing other X11 server code, not for normal developers doing X11 stuff, i.e. more or less an artifact of the big split of X11 into modules (I realize that this characterization is a bit stretching). It could reasonably be named xorg-x11-server-devel, but I don't see a big reason to enforce that name. It's not that anyone who doesn't know the current name would want to have it. OpenOffice_org-sdk could also be named -devel I think. It mostly contains IDL defs and UNO interfaces. OTOH it doesn't contain libraries to directly link against, something which I would expect in a random -devel package. > I was wondering if there is a special policy regarding the -sdk suffix > that I'm not aware of? Shouldn't those packages be named -devel? IMHO: xorg-x11-server-sdk should be named -devel, the others not. My criteria would be: What's the most interesting thing in there? If it's header files and libraries -> -devel. If other stuff prevails -> whatever. And no, that's no policy :) Ciao, Michael. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
