-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist Version: 3.6.2.2
Hi, Could Policy be amended slightly to explicitly permit library source packages to create a <library>-headers package containing include files? I am thinking that something like the following could be added between the existing first and second paragraphs of Section 8.4, "Development files", http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-dev [begin suggested text] If your library source package includes a large number of header files that are to be installed in /usr/include or subdirectories thereof, it may place them in a binary package called librarynamesoversion-headers or (if you prefer only to support one development version at a time, or if the library API is preserved across different soversions) libraryname-headers. If you do this, the development package must Depend upon the headers package. If the development package is architecture-dependent and the headers package is not, the development package should not require exactly the same version of the headers package in order to prevent problems arising from binary NMUs. [end suggested text] Without this or a similar text, it is not clear to me that source packages creating <library>-headers binary packages are in compliance with Policy, which currently says "The development files associated to a shared library need to be placed in a package called librarynamesoversion-dev, or if you prefer only to support one development version at a time, libraryname-dev." The following library source packages of which I am aware create - -headers packages that are in compliance with the suggested amendment above: . affix-kernel . atlas3 . qt-x11-free (Qt3) . wxwindows2.4 . wxwidgets2.6 The following library source package creates a -headers package that is not quite in compliance: . newlib (has exact version dependency of arch:any -dev package on arch:all -headers package) Some other source packages creating -headers packages to which this suggested policy amendment would not apply: . *-kernel-headers (not created from a library source package) . em8300-headers (ditto) . octave2.1 (the shared libs aren't in /usr/lib, nor does the package tweak ld.so.conf so that they're visible to the runtime linker, so I don't believe this counts as a library source package) . octave2.9 (ditto) CC'ed to debian-devel in case anyone wants to add to or disagree with this suggestion. regards, - -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDxS/5fYxAIk+Dx1ERAnK+AKC9+FmXe/NiDmtpuUU/T7kLcX2SogCgqrQr CQp3MCVPmgLqq6loQfnccwg= =eVUJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
