Luk Claes <l...@debian.org> wrote: > Your plan looks good except that I think it would be better to have > libtiff5-dev provide libtiff-dev and not introduce a proper libtiff-dev.
Thanks for the reply. That's fine, I can make that modification. Rereading my plan all the way through, I think having libtiff5-dev provide libtiff-dev instead of renaming it requires small and obvious changes and also means that people who depend on libtiff5-dev don't technically have to change their packages. I'd still rather have people build depend on libtiff-dev. Most of my arguments for not having libtiff5-dev were based on potential future transitions, which are not all that likely to happen. That said, I do use unversioned dev package names for all my other library packages, and if I were packaging tiff from scratch today, I would probably do it that way. But I don't feel strongly, so I can and will go with your modification unless someone tells me not to. I am assuming this is not an invitation to proceed yet, right? I am holding off on doing it until I actually get an explicit go-ahead. If I'm supposed to take this as a green light, please let me know. -- Jay Berkenbilt <q...@debian.org> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130903141817.0222656689.qww314...@jberkenbilt-linux.appiancorp.com
