On Tue Aug 17 22:26, tony mancill wrote: > This is a good observation, although I think the issue may be limited to > packages where the library is generally useful *and* is a program > (antlr comes to mind). For a program-only package, the name of the > wrapper script will be the name known to the user, so perhaps the > package naming requirement can be relaxed, but I'm not sure it matters. That
For a program-only package, there's no restriction on the naming - as nothing depends on it (via the ABI), so you don't need both versions installed at once. Given that you don't want the version number in the program name, they won't be parallel-installable anyway. For a source package that ships both a library and a program, the library binary package would contain the ABI but the program binary package would not. This means that you can have the library binary package installed from the old source package for things which were compiled against that as well as the library and program binary packages from the new source package for things which use those. If you need to have both the new and old versions of the program package installed at once, that's outside the scope of this document. Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
