On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 02:34:15AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:27:48PM -0400, Steve Halasz wrote: > > Does anyone have a response to Steve Langasek's query below? > > > The history of the gdal package naming decision is here: > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-general/2005-December/001462.html > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-general/2005-December/001498.html > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-general/2006-January/001611.html > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-general/2006-January/001645.html > > > I believe the -dev package is renamed to deal with the possibility of an > > API change: > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-general/2006-January/001622.html > > The mere *possibility* of an API change is not a good reason to rename a > package; it causes more work for the release team to track such a > transition, and more work for the maintainers who would otherwise not > necessarily need to upload their packages at all. > > > This seems consistent with the recommendations at > > http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#id271897 > > Those recommendations are not endorsed by the release team, precisely > because of the extra work they cause for no practical gain. >
We will have possibility to discuss those question in the next few days with upstream. I would be happy if we could come up with a simple libgdal1-dev package in a few, now that 1.4 is in preparation... I think we have anyway an issue with current gdal because both 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 should be installable at the same time, so 1.3.2 anyway requires a revision :-/ -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
