On 11880 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > Source: pion-net > Binary: libpion-net-dev, libpion-net-2.1.8, libpion-common-2.1.8, > libpion-net-2.1.8-dbg, libpion-common-2.1.8-dbg, libpion-net-doc
> The problem, as I see it, with this arrangement is, that when a new > upstream released, like 2.1.9, then four of the package names will > change, resulting in the need for the new upstream to pass NEW > processing. I don't currently plan to package and reverse dependencies. > However, that is not to say that someone else will not in the future. No matter if you package -net and -common in one or two or four packages - as you will have something changing in the package name when SONAME changes, you *will* have a run through NEW. There is no way you can avoid this, so looking at it from that POV is wasted time. :) > I have looked at how some other packages handle it (e.g., boost), but > they version even the -dev package and source package, so that each new > upstream release results in a new source package. I'm not sure if that > approach would work or is appropriate for this package. Boost is nothing to compare yourself with. And having even source and -dev versioned is usually unwanted. There are exceptions to that rule, but usually you do want them unversioned. > Any advice/insights on this would be appreciated. Do it right :) -- bye, Joerg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
