Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit:
> Would the following scheme be acceptable to you?:
>
> Package: libijs-0.34
> contains libijs-0.34.so
In my little testing, if I build a library with
-export-dynamic -version-info 0:0:0 -release 1.0.1
I get:
$ ls -1 .libs/
libdshconfig-1.0.1.so.0
libdshconfig-1.0.1.so.0.0.0
libdshconfig.a
libdshconfig.la
libdshconfig.so
libdshconfig-1.0.1.so.0
libdshconfig-1.0.1.so.0.0.0
belong to libdshconfig-1.0.1-0
libdshconfig.a
libdshconfig.la
libdshconfig.so
belong to libdshconfig-1.0.1-0-dev
With no -version-info:
libdshconfig-1.0.1.so
libdshconfig.a
libdshconfig.la
libdshconfig.lai
libdshconfig.so
where libdshconfig-1.0.1 package will contain
libdshconfig-1.0.1
and libdshconfig-1.0.1-dev package will contain
libdshconfig.so
libdshconfig.a
libdshconfig.la
Would those examples help ?
If it does, I'll add this example to libpkg-guide.
> Package: libijs-0.34-dev
> Provides: libijs-dev
> Conflicts: libijs-dev
> contains libijs.a and ijs-config
>
> This will allow versioned Build-Depends. If there are regular
> releases, then the numbers of conflicts in the -dev package will get
> quite long. Should I keep them indefinitely?
Why? The only one required is
Conflicts: libijs-dev.
regards,
junichi
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
