Hello all, I'm the author of libcwd. In the past Martin Krafft has been the debian maintainer of this package. However, he stopped using it and the version on debian is lagging a bit.
In the meantime, I started to use debian myself, and I added amd64 support to libcwd - all the more reason to upgrade libcwd on debain again. Martin proposed that I'd become the package maintainer, with him as sponsor, and I accepted. The following are some questions that I have: As is described in <URL REMOVED>/libpkg-guide.html a shared library should exist of two (binary) packages: libfooX and libfoo-dev. However, the argumentation of that rule is based on the assumption that there exist other packages that link against those libraries. This is not the case for libcwd. Consider the following facts: - No application (or library) is linked against libcwd and then distributed: there will never exist (binary) packages that link against libcwd. - Libcwd itself makes sure that an application that was compiled with libcwd version x.y.z, will also only be used (runtime linked) with version x.y.z (if that is not the case, a message is printed and the application core dumps on purpose). In otherwords, logic dictates that there will be only a single (binary) package for libcwd. I'm convinced that this is the logical thing to do and will be the least confusing. I'm just posting here to see how much resistance I'd run into ;) There will be a source package of course, and then libcwd-doc with the documentation, and just 'libcwd' as the package that developers need to debug their C++ applications under test. Looking forward to your comments, Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
