[once more, doesn't belong on -release...] On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:11:21PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Junichi Uekawa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > * Junichi Uekawa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > I'd like to propose, for new -dev packages, to > > > > name -dev packages after their runtime library counterparts.
> > > Uh, no? The -dev packages have no need to match to a specific runtime > > > library and this just creates unnecessary work. > > Well, I will list the rationale; it might have been a bit > > of an abrupt mail for those who did not attend today's talk. > > 1. usually -dev packages have a symlink to the shared library > > contained in the runtime shared library package. > Uhh, this isn't a reason for them to have the major SO version in the > name of the -dev package. > > 2. The information of -dev packages depending on other -dev packages > > cannot be automatically determined currently; > > it should be possible to obtain a minimal list by analyzing the > > NEEDED field of the objdump output. > Errr, -dev packages generally don't (and shouldn't) depend on other -dev > packages. If you're trying to push the idea that -dev packages should > depend on the -dev packages of libraries they depend on- don't. That's > *wrong*, it's the completely wrong approach and should *not* be taken. It's more or less mandatory for libtool-based packages, due to a historical misfeature of libtool; it's the only way to ensure static libs from any particular -dev package are in a usable state; and it's essential when use of the -dev package depends on the availability of headers from other -dev packages. That's not a very strong rationale for the proposed policy, but the -dev dependencies themselves are (unfortunately) warranted. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
