On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:27:12AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello Bill, > > Bill Allombert [2010-02-14 10:18 +0100]: > > The first step is to fix packages that Depend on 'libjpeg62-dev'. They > > should > > Depend on 'libjpeg-dev' instead. Please do not make them Depend on > > 'libjpeg8-dev', or 'libjpeg-dev|libjpeg62-dev' or > > 'libjpeg-dev|libjpeg8-dev' or > > other combinaisons since this is useless and can only cause problem is the > > future. > > This sounds wrong, though. So far it has been good practice (and > lintian complains about it, too) to specify a real dependency first, > and only then a virtual alternative; and for libraries it seems like > an abuse of virtual packages to me in the first place:
I do not think this practice is good when there is always a single alternative. For example, it is better to depend on libc-dev than 'libc-dev|libc6-dev' because libc6-dev might not exist on some Debian architecture. Naming the package libjpeg8-dev allowed me to upload it, get it built and tested, before it started to provide libjpeg-dev. > * If these were, and are expected to, keep API backwards > compatibility, the binary package should be called libjpeg-dev, > without any virtual packages. Then a simple binNMU would be enough. Well, if every package refers to it by the name libjpeg-dev and not libjpeg8-dev then we achieve the same goal. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100214122210.gb27...@yellowpig
