Hi,
> > The library package guide should tell you to use
> >
> > libspf-1.0-0
>
> Note that the question was about the -dev package naming, which is
> not really explained in your excellent FAQ.
>
> PS: also, will you ever incorporate the shell script snippet by
> Steve Langasek I sent you, w
On 15.06.2005, at 01:51, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
The library package guide should tell you to use
If it doesn't, that's an error in the guide;
but I would also first check the SONAME of the library.
Exactly, but I do not recall that it mentions the name of the
corresponding dev package, but I d
also sprach Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.15.0151 +0200]:
> The library package guide should tell you to use
>
> libspf-1.0-0
Note that the question was about the -dev package naming, which is
not really explained in your excellent FAQ.
PS: also, will you ever incorporate the shel
Hi,
> A package that installs /usr/lib/libspf-1.0.so.0.0.0 should be names
> libspf-1.0-0 from all I can tell. The policy does not dictate how
> the -dev (and -doc) package should be named. I would prefer not to
> call it libspf-dev but rather encode the version.
>
> The library packaging guide s
also sprach Philipp Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.14.1658 +0200]:
> Just looking it up in the old thread "Library package naming" I saw
> that you told me not to use -release at all when packaging a shared
> library.
Lol. Oh, *that* thread. :)
Yeah, I maintain that -release is not good b
On 14.06.2005, at 14:47, martin f krafft wrote:
Do you have a pointer to the discussion?
Just looking it up in the old thread "Library package naming" I saw
that you told me not to use -release at all when packaging a shared
library. But yes, the naming of the dev package is not explicitly
also sprach Philipp Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.13.2301 +0200]:
> If you see the -release bit as the API version you should name
> your dev package libspf-1.0-dev. That was at least what I was
> advised to do when I had the same problem some weeks ago.
Do you have a pointer to the discussi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13.06.2005, at 22:36, martin f krafft wrote:
A package that installs /usr/lib/libspf-1.0.so.0.0.0 should be names
libspf-1.0-0 from all I can tell. The policy does not dictate how
the -dev (and -doc) package should be named. I would prefer not to
A package that installs /usr/lib/libspf-1.0.so.0.0.0 should be names
libspf-1.0-0 from all I can tell. The policy does not dictate how
the -dev (and -doc) package should be named. I would prefer not to
call it libspf-dev but rather encode the version.
The library packaging guide says I should incl
9 matches
Mail list logo
