> > As an example, here is how I'm currently planning to package Tcl in > > the new ELF version. > > > > tcl74 will contain tclsh7.4, libtcl7.4.so.1 and supporting run-time > > files and documentation. It will coexist with other shared library > > packages such as tcl75. > > > > tcl-dev will contain header files, static libraries and supporting > > documentation. Only one of these packages will be allowed at a time. > > So the convention you're using here is > <package><library-major> > for the shared libraries and supporting run-time files and > <package>-dev > for the developer version.
That's the way I was leaning yesterday. Today, I'm leaning towards <package><major> and <package><major>-dev. The reason being that dependencies would be simpler. I'll use Tcl/Tk as an example again. If I used tcl-dev and tk-dev, I would have to make tk-dev-4.0-* depend on tcl-dev-7.4-*. I don't know if dpkg can do that. If I used tcl74-dev and tk40-dev, tk40-dev-* could simply depend on tcl74-dev. The various tcl*-dev packages would still be mutually exclusive by having them all provide and conflict with tcl-dev. This would also be consistent with how I've already done libc5. One other benefit would that the ftp administrator would be less likely to inadverntantly delete tcl74-dev whenever tcl75-dev comes along since it has a different base package name. > > BTW, since I used Tcl for my example, I might as well ask this now. > > The command-level manual pages will go in the tcl74 package and the > > C-level manual pages will go in the tcl-dev package, but where should > > the script-level manual pages go? IMO, they should go with the > > interpreter in the tcl74 package, but making them coexist with tcl75, > > etc. would be impratical. > > They might also be quite large, and wouldn't necessarily be needed by > all programs that are linked against libtcl.so. Perhaps a separate > package for the documentation ? tcl-doc sounds like the obvious name. That had occurred to me as well. However, does anyone see a real advantage, to installing the doc package without the dev package or installing one version of the doc package and a different version of the dev package. If not, the documentation might as well be folded in with the dev package. David -- David Engel Optical Data Systems, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1101 E. Arapaho Road (214) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081
