On 2015-07-02 11:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2015-06-30 01:31:38 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote: >> On 30/06/15 00:38, Andreas Beckmann wrote: >>> PS: Is it really necessary to switch from an unversioned -dev package >>> to a versioned one? >> >> For consistency ? > > I'm not sure, but this will have the drawback that packages which > depend or build-depend on the -dev package will have to be updated > if its name changes (due to a backward incompatible change in the > libmpfi ABI).
I think the general consensus is to have more unversioned -dev packages to ease transitions, since in most cases a binNMU will be sufficient to pick up the dependency on the new SONAME. Even historically versioned ones have transitioned to unversioned ones (e.g. tiff3, tiff4 -> tiff). Also -dev package versioning (if needed) is usually by "project version", not by SOVERSION (the two tiffs have/had SOVERSIONS 4 and 5, respectively, which may be a bit confusing: you built against libtiff3-dev and got a dependency on libtiff4). Andreas -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
