Bug#863030: Do not encode soversion in source and dev package name

2017-07-17 Thread Michael Biebl
Am 17.07.2017 um 12:00 schrieb Simon Josefsson: > mån 2017-07-17 klockan 11:56 +0200 skrev Michael Biebl: >> Use >> Source: libidn2 >> Package: libidn2-dev >> instead > > Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, I agree. It could be argued that we > could keep libidn2-0-dev, if we want to allow having mult

Bug#863030: Do not encode soversion in source and dev package name

2017-07-17 Thread Simon Josefsson
mån 2017-07-17 klockan 11:56 +0200 skrev Michael Biebl: > Am 17.07.2017 um 08:48 schrieb Simon Josefsson: > > Hi Michael.  I don't agree with renaming the package name.  The > > debian > > policy manual says in section 8.1 [1] that: > > > >    The run-time shared library must be placed in a pa

Bug#863030: Do not encode soversion in source and dev package name

2017-07-17 Thread Michael Biebl
Am 17.07.2017 um 08:48 schrieb Simon Josefsson: > Hi Michael. I don't agree with renaming the package name. The debian > policy manual says in section 8.1 [1] that: > >The run-time shared library must be placed in a package whose >name changes whenever the SONAME of the shared >

Bug#863030: Do not encode soversion in source and dev package name

2017-07-16 Thread Simon Josefsson
Hi Michael. I don't agree with renaming the package name. The debian policy manual says in section 8.1 [1] that: The run-time shared library must be placed in a package whose name changes whenever the SONAME of the shared    library changes.  This allows several versions of the

Bug#863030: Do not encode soversion in source and dev package name

2017-05-20 Thread Andreas Metzler
In article <74d26891-c5e4-564f-bc96-88cbf3c94d06__38511.7756938145$1495284174$gmane$o...@debian.org> (gmane.comp.gnu.libidn.general) you wrote: > Am 20.05.2017 um 14:17 schrieb Michael Biebl: >> Please consider renaming the source package to >> Source: libidn2 so it reflects the upstream name >>

Bug#863030: Do not encode soversion in source and dev package name

2017-05-20 Thread Michael Biebl
Am 20.05.2017 um 14:17 schrieb Michael Biebl: > Please consider renaming the source package to > Source: libidn2 so it reflects the upstream name > and the dev package to > Package: libidn2-dev Reasons for *not* including the soversion in the -dev package name: - On a soname bump, you most likely

Bug#863030: Do not encode soversion in source and dev package name

2017-05-20 Thread Michael Biebl
Source: libidn2-0 Version: 0.16-1 Severity: normal Hi, the upstream source tarball is named libidn2_$(version). Afaics, you encoded the soversion "0" into that name, resulting in Source: libidn2-0 This is quite unusual and not how (library) packages are handled in Debian. The same is true for t