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. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
