> * task-kde-devel > package task-kde-devel doesn't install because it depends on > xlibs-dev | xlibs6g-dev > > It should read xlib6g-dev (no extra 's')
yup typo...fixed > It suggests qt2.2-doc, but the consistent suggestion is qt-doc (see below). I can't find any reference to qt2.2-doc in the current task packages. > * libqt2, libqt-dev, and qt-doc > the naming is imho inconsistent and counterintuitive, I'd expected the > packages to be named (like in many other cases): > libqt2-dev > qt2-doc no..this is wrong. libqt-dev is how the dev package should be. I've been trying very hard to cleanup this multiple -dev versions problem... There should be only 1 -dev package for a library unless there is very good reason to have more than one...like the newer version doesn't work on all archs or something like that. since the library is libqt the -dev package shoudl be libqt-dev. Since you can have multiple versions of the shared library installed you name the library package like libqt2 where 2 is equal to the soname. When qt3 comes out there will be a libqt3 package...however the -dev package will still be libqt-dev...a developer should always be able to do a apt-get install libqt-dev and get the latest version. and for the -doc package..there is no need to have a different verison of the -doc package for every library..especially since the -doc package is filled with -devel documentation. thus qt-doc. This is very intuitive if you follow the Debian model of doing libraries. > * kdoc > on 28.2.2001, kdoc was only in binary-powerpc but not in binary-i386 or > -all. very weird...especially since it isn't even in the "main" section on kde.tdyc.com currently...however I just fixed that. > * libldap2, libldap2-dev > There is some inconsequent versioning. > With KDE 2.0.1 came 2.0.7-0.potato.1 > With KDE 2.1 came 2.0.7-0.potato2 > > Due to the missing '.' after potato is potato2 considered older than > potato.1. > This causes installation problems (the libldap2-dev of KDE 2.1 requires > libldap2 potato2, but the dpkg will not upgrade libldap2....) > > > This is probably more a case for Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> no it wouldn't...it's totally a problem on my side which has already been fixed. Ivan -- ---------------- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
