"David I. Lehn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> liba52-dev
> liba52-0
> libmpeg2-dev
> libmpeg2-0
Looks fine to me. Policy 11.3 would recommend that the packages be
called liba520 etc. without the dash, but unless my reading is wrong
this is not a strict requirement. Clarity would dictate the use of a
delimiter.
> I'm thinking that just to be on the safe side I should version the dev
> packages too so as to not conflict with, say, version 52 of a liba dev
> package.
>
> liba52-0-dev
[...]
> libmpeg2-0-dev
I think we can safely postpone this until we have a liba nearing the
52nd interface change. (Hell, even libgal will take some months to
reach that high a version.)
More of a problem is the libmpeg prefix. We currently have a library
whose soname is libmpeg.so.1 -- this one could be libmpeg.so.2 soon.
Its -dev currently is just libmpeg-dev, but there's no guarantee it
will stay unversioned. You should probably go with libmpeg2-0-dev.
IMO, you have discoverd a wart in policy. It does not deal well with
numbers in library names. With a mapping of soname
"lib<name>.so.<major>" to package "lib<name>-<major>" there would be
less ambiguity (<name>s ending with dashes should be very rare).
--
Robbe
signature.ng
