Hi Adam, > > > > Are those libraries private to salome? (In other words, are you sure > > that no other package will be linked against them?) > > * If yes, there is no reason to provide libsalome5.1.3-0 and > > libsalome-dev packages, these libs are shipped by another package > > (python2.5-salome?) and can safely be moved into /usr/lib/salome/ > > * If no, they should indeed go into /usr/lib/ but name collisions will > > happen. > > Maybe the answer is a mix of both, some libs are private and some > > others are public. > > I was thinking the same thing. Back to André: are there libraries which > are meant to be shared with other packages, or are they all private to > Salomé? To my point of view, all librairies should be private to Salomé. I agree with the first solution, there is no need to provide libsalome* and python2.5-salome. > > > BTW when looking at this issue, I found that python2.5-salome contains > > shared libraries, it thus must be arch:any and not arch:all. It also > > contains static libraries which can surely be dropped. > > BTW2, I wonder whether salome, python2.5-salome, libsalome5.1.3-0 and > > libsalome-dev could be merged into a single package (if all libs are > > private, of course). > > Indeed. There's still value in having a separate -common package, to > reduce archive disk footprint. I'll first try to get the new paths > working, then do this merger, and upload, then we can think about > splitting things up differently. (core, extras, dev, test) Excellent. I saw anyway that you have just opened bug 584590 where we are going to try to solve that problem.
Best regards, André -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
