On 06/12/13 20:48, Philipp Kern wrote:
So if you version your -dev package, do not install into an unversioned
place like libtiff5-dev does. :)
It seems to me that the good options are:
* one unversioned -dev package, on the default gcc include path and/or
relying on pkg-config to get the
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
* If your package build-depends on libtiff5-dev, you don't HAVE to do
anything, but you may be helping yourself in the future if you change
the build dependency to libtiff-dev ( 4.0.3-6~).
Uhm, I have a rather general question here.
libtiff-dev
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:19:14AM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
* If your package build-depends on libtiff5-dev, you don't HAVE to do
anything, but you may be helping yourself in the future if you change
the build dependency to libtiff-dev (
On 06/12/13 10:56, Colin Watson wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:19:14AM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
* If your package build-depends on libtiff5-dev, you don't HAVE to do
anything, but you may be helping yourself in the future if you change
Simon McVittie wrote:
As far as I can see, changing from (libtiffN-dev Provides libtiff-dev,
libtiff(N+1)-dev does not) to the other way round has an inherent race
Hm indeed. Makes me wonder whether it would not be better to make
libtiff-dev the real package and abandon libtiffN-dev altogether.
On 2013-12-06, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote:
Hm indeed. Makes me wonder whether it would not be better to make
libtiff-dev the real package and abandon libtiffN-dev altogether.
(Never understood why the -dev packages need the numbers, anyway.)
The -dev packages needs numbers if you
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk wrote:
On 2013-12-06, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote:
Hm indeed. Makes me wonder whether it would not be better to make
libtiff-dev the real package and abandon libtiffN-dev altogether.
(Never understood why the -dev packages need the numbers, anyway.)
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 02:38:47PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2013-12-06, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote:
Hm indeed. Makes me wonder whether it would not be better to make
libtiff-dev the real package and abandon libtiffN-dev altogether.
(Never understood why the -dev packages
8 matches
Mail list logo
