On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 12:01:50PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > - Since the API changed, shouldn't the -dev package change its name, or > > is this information in the Library Packaging Guide controversial? Or > > even if it's generally consensual, should the name still be kept > > unchanged because plain libpoppler doesn't guarantee any API anyway?
> Step 1: > Looks like ideal move would be to create libpoppler0.5-dev; -glib and > -qt bindings didn't change API, so they could keep their name. Six packages build-depend on libpoppler-dev, but I understand that only one of them is affected by the API change; so it seems my concern about cost/benefit of changing the package name still applies here. > Step 2: > And I will introduce debian specific SONAME for libpoppler, so we are > not hit by random ABI changes. Sounds good to me... Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
