On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Yann Dirson wrote:
[snip]
> Yes, but that's not what I meant. The issue is about the lib's
> minor/pl rev. numbers (in the case of what I call a non-standalone
> lib[1], which is not the case of readline), which don't get their way
> anywhere in the case where only the source-package revision is used.
[snip]
> [1] I mean by non-standalone lib a lib that is provided by a source
> package, with its revision-number being independant of the source
> package's revision-number. The best example I have is e2fsprogs_1.10
> provising release 2.0 of libcom_err.
Ok, now I got your point. But I'm still not convinced that your solution
(including the shlib's version number in the package name) is good. Just
image a package which contains several shared libraries with different
version numbers.
If the point is just to get the information about which shlibs are
included out of the package itself, I suggest to mention the shlibs in the
Description or some other control field. I don't think that using the
package name would be a good idea.
Any other opinions here??
Thanks,
Chris
-- Christian Schwarz
Do you know [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Debian GNU/Linux? [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
http://www.debian.org http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/
