On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Mark Brown wrote: > > But maybe we can have a lintian warning if the name of the package appears > > nowhere in the dependency. > > That would probably be a good idea.
Submitted as #461575. > I wonder if the header line could > even be autogenerated since I'd expect 90% of packages are going to want > to use the same template? If people grab symbols files from qa.debian.org/cgi-bin/mole/seedsymbols then they get the right the package already. The whole header line can't be autogenerated, you need indicate the library soname somewhere and currently the parser requires a dependency after the library name. I don't think auto-generating that part is worth the effort currently. > > shouldn't be used, I'd rather make that explicit than let them generate a > > dependency on a recent version of the lib which might go unnoticed. > > Yes, me too but I didn't see any way to do that. At least, you know how now. > > Maybe we need some standard mechanism for this, I don't know. Initially I > > drafted that we could put "-" as version on some symbols to mean that they > > are private and shouldn't be used but I never implemented that. > > Yes, that would be a useful feature to have. Perhaps even allowing some > text to explain why the symbol should not be used or otherwise provide a > hint to someone who does end up using the symbol. In the end, I decided it wasn't really needed as the alternative dependency mechanism could be used in a similar way. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
