In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Unfortunately, the Packaging Manual states the opposite of this:
> (chapter 12) > Firstly, your package should install the shared libraries under > their normal names. For example, the libgdbm1 package should install > libgdbm.so.1.7.3 as /usr/lib/libgdbm.so.1.7.3. > (snip) > Secondly, your package should include the symlink that ldconfig > would create for the shared libraries. For example, the libgdbm1 > package should include a symlink from /usr/lib/libgdbm.so.1 to > libgdbm.so.1.7.3. > (snip) > Thirdly, the development package should contain a symlink for the > shared library without a version number. For example, the > libgdbm1-dev package should include a symlink from > /usr/lib/libgdm.so to libgdm.so.1.7.3. This, this looks like a geniune buglet in the Packaging Manual, since the Packaging Manual examples, even, should use best practices... As for the depends, I like the *tight* coupling between lib*-dev and lib* packages since I think it's kinda evil to use a -dev that's not the exact version of the runtime lib we're using. Some other people agree: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]:apharris> dpkg -s libc6-dev | grep Depends Depends: libc6 (= 2.0.7u-4), gcc (>= 2.7.2.3-1) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]:apharris> dpkg -s libjpeg62-dev | grep Depends Depends: libjpeg62 (= 6b-1.1), libc6-dev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]:apharris> dpkg -s liblockfile-dev | grep Depends Depends: liblockfile0 (= 0.1-5) Some do not: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]:apharris> dpkg -s libncurses4-dev | grep Depends Depends: libncurses4, libc6-dev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]:apharris> dpkg -s libproc-dev | grep Depends Depends: libc6-dev, procps (>> 1:1.2.9-0), procps (<< 1:1.2.10-0) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]:apharris> dpkg -s libstdc++2.9-dev | grep Depends Depends: libstdc++2.9 (>= 2.91.58), libc6-dev But should it be policy? Are those who don't have the '=' depedancy committing bugs? I don't think so, necessarily. Though libncurses4-dev looks odd...! Like I said, the package dependancies should simply reflect actual dependancies, which vary from situation to situation. So for this matter, I say, no policy change needed. -- .....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
