Hi Sylvestre, On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 07:19:44AM -0800, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > Well, I switched the package to d-shlibs which is implementing the > > Debian Library Packaging Guide (that strictly that you need to follow > > names conventions like this - most packages without using d-shlibs > > are more sloppy). > I think that many people consider this guide as deprecated.
While I have no doubt that this is the case - I admit I consider this naming convention also a bit clumsy - I have never read about this. For me the guide was the *only* *existing* documentation. This is simply the reason why I did follow it. > Anyway, myself, I don't really see the point of having 1.0-0-dev in the > library. > :( I'm keeping Jonas as the d-shlibs maintainer in CC. Jonas, would you suggest a relevant list to discuss this and perhaps adapt d-shlibs to accept less verbose version numbers inside package names? > >> I found that a bit silly, useless and broken the only dependency of it > >> (subsurface) :( > > Really? THe virtual package libosmgpsmap-dev remains provided and there > > should be no conflict. How can I verify this obvervation of yours? > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737312 Well, I did not intend to break anything but I keep on wondering why the build is broken since the virtual package exists. I'm fine with reverting the change but I'd like to stick to d-shlibs if possible. May be Jonas could come up with some suggestion about the requirement of the version numbers inside the package names. > > Greetings from Debian Med sprint in Stonehaven > Cool :) I guess you are at FOSDEM which is cool as well. :-) Sorry for the inconvience I might have created Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
