Am 17.07.2017 um 08:48 schrieb Simon Josefsson: > Hi Michael. I don't agree with renaming the package name. The debian > policy manual says in section 8.1 [1] that: > > The run-time shared library must be placed in a package whose > name changes whenever the SONAME of the shared > library changes. This allows several versions of the shared > library to be installed at the same time, allowing installation > of the new version of the shared library without immediately > breaking binaries that depend on the old version. Normally, > the run-time shared library and its SONAME symlink should be > placed in a package named librarynamesoversion, where soversion > is the version number in the SONAME of the shared library. > Alternatively, if it would be confusing to directly append > soversion to libraryname (if, for example, libraryname itself > ends in a number), you should use libraryname-soversion instead. > > This is what I believe we are doing. Can you explain more in detail > what is wrong? From my reading, we are doing what we should do, and > what you suggest would not be consistent with the above. >
I'm talking about the the dev and source package, not the library package, i.e. using a soversion in Package: libidn2-0 is fine, but it's wrong for Source: libidn2-0 Package: libidn2-0-dev Use Source: libidn2 Package: libidn2-dev instead -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
