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 want to have several around at the same time. Having the unversioned -dev package be a virtual package worksr fine as long as 1) no one will need a versioned dependency on the unversioned virtual dev package 2) only one package is providing the virtual package at a time. Yes. 2) is theoretically racy. but from a practical purpose, the race is irrelevant. /Sune -- 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/slrnla3oc2.j8.nos...@sshway.ssh.pusling.com
