[Pkg-running-devel] Bug#737312: libosmgpsmap-1.0-0-dev ?
Andreas Tille
tille at debian.org
Sun Feb 2 10:07:41 UTC 2014
Hi Sylvestre,
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 07:19:44AM -0800, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > Well, I switched the package to d-shlibs which is implementing the
> > Debian Library Packaging Guide (that strictly that you need to follow
> > names conventions like this - most packages without using d-shlibs
> > are more sloppy).
> I think that many people consider this guide as deprecated.
While I have no doubt that this is the case - I admit I consider this
naming convention also a bit clumsy - I have never read about this. For
me the guide was the *only* *existing* documentation. This is simply
the reason why I did follow it.
> Anyway, myself, I don't really see the point of having 1.0-0-dev in the
> library.
> :(
I'm keeping Jonas as the d-shlibs maintainer in CC. Jonas, would you
suggest a relevant list to discuss this and perhaps adapt d-shlibs
to accept less verbose version numbers inside package names?
> >> I found that a bit silly, useless and broken the only dependency of it
> >> (subsurface) :(
> > Really? THe virtual package libosmgpsmap-dev remains provided and there
> > should be no conflict. How can I verify this obvervation of yours?
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737312
Well, I did not intend to break anything but I keep on wondering why the
build is broken since the virtual package exists. I'm fine with reverting
the change but I'd like to stick to d-shlibs if possible. May be Jonas
could come up with some suggestion about the requirement of the version
numbers inside the package names.
> > Greetings from Debian Med sprint in Stonehaven
> Cool :)
I guess you are at FOSDEM which is cool as well. :-)
Sorry for the inconvience I might have created
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
More information about the Pkg-running-devel
mailing list