Brian Nelson wrote: > It's not clear to me that splitting out the headers is actually a good > thing (it's very annoying for autobuilders since the corresponding -dev > package won't be installable until the new version has been autobuilt), > so I certainly don't think policy should endorse it.
It wouldn't be an endorsement, just a permission. It seems to me that policy currently prohibits -headers packages for shared libraries by saying that development files must be in the -dev package. Do you feel -headers packages _should_ be explicitly prohibited? My main motive in making the suggestion is that when the headers are architecture-independent and there are a lot of them, splitting them out into a separate arch:all package can save a lot of archive space. (I don't know what the motive was of the developers who created packages like libqt3-headers, which are arch:any.) > "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>CC'ed to debian-devel in case anyone wants to add to or disagree with >>this suggestion. > > Uh, no it's not. For "CC'ed" read "X-Debbugs-CC'ed". The web archive of the mailing list hasn't been updated since early this morning (as of this writing), but you can see my email in the gated newsgroup, for instance on Google Groups, http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.devel . If it isn't showing up to debian-devel email subscribers, something strange is going on (I read the list through the web archive so I don't know whether or not this is the case). regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
