On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Len Sorensen <lennartsoren...@ruggedcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 04:47:03PM -0400, Christian Hammers wrote: >> That sounds reasonable. >> >> Maybe upstream started to put proper versions on the library by then. >> Because else people will file RC bugs if upstream changes the ABI and >> I still ship it as .so.0.0.0. Alternatively I could put the shared >> library into a -dev package to clarify its intend but that surely also >> violates the policy :) > > Well since I think the shared library is used by quagga, it can't go > in -dev. The headers and static library though isn't used by quagga > and could go in -dev (and should). Whether to split the shared library > into a seperate libquagga is the big question.
It must not be put into separate libquagga unless the ABI (and API) is stable. The policy is very clear on that. I would say to drop the .h/.a/.la and introduce it back only if people starts asking for it. Which I very much doubt, since I have never heard of some other software built on top of quagga. O. -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
