mån 2017-07-17 klockan 11:56 +0200 skrev Michael Biebl: > 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
Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, I agree. It could be argued that we could keep libidn2-0-dev, if we want to allow having multiple versions around. But this is not likely. I'll let the package move into testing and then make the change. Thanks, /Simon
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
