Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> (16/05/2013): > Package: debian-policy > Severity: normal > > Policy 8.4 currently says: > > If there are development files associated with a shared library, > the source package needs to generate a binary development package > named librarynamesoversion-dev, or if you prefer only to support one > development version at a time, libraryname-dev. > > This encourages unnecessary transitions since the SONAME may change > without significant changes to the API, and the latter is what the -dev > package naming is about. Changing the -dev package name is quite > disruptive, since it normally requires sourceful uploads of all packages > that Build-Depend on the library and can't be done with binNMUs. > > I think we should instead encourage -dev packages to be unversioned by > default, much more strongly than we currently do. It's rare that > supporting multiple versions of the API in the archive at the same time > is actually required or a good idea. In the rare cases that it is, I > think the version in the -dev package name should reflect some sort of > upstream API version, not the SONAME (which is about ABI compatibility).
Absolutely, thanks for your initiative. Mraw, KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
