Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - When the API becomes incompatible (which would implicitly make the
> > ABI incompatible), both the -dev and library package should increment their
> > numbers.
>
> > - When the ABI becomes incompatible without affecting the API, only
> > the
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 06:02:07PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You're missing the point that sonames track *ABI* changes, and -dev package
> > names should track *API* changes. Typically, upstreams make API changes on
> > new major releases; ABI ch
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're missing the point that sonames track *ABI* changes, and -dev package
> names should track *API* changes. Typically, upstreams make API changes on
> new major releases; ABI changes can happen much more often than this.
> Tracking sonames in your -
Am Sonntag, 28. Mai 2006 00:00 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> and -dev package
> names should track *API* changes
To be more precise: incompatible API changes. If the current API is simply
extended by some new function, the -dev package keeps its numbered name.
HS
pgpwQExhAEWsj.pgp
Description: PGP
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 11:14:44AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Odd, because my package depends on libapr0-dev (probably going to be
> > > libapr0-dev | libapr1-dev soon), and an apt-cache search for "0-dev" on my
> > The versionings is when stuff
Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Odd, because my package depends on libapr0-dev (probably going to be
> > libapr0-dev | libapr1-dev soon), and an apt-cache search for "0-dev" on my
>
> The versionings is when stuff change to incompatible APIs, so probably
> depending on (libfoo0-dev
On 2006-05-27, Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Odd, because my package depends on libapr0-dev (probably going to be
> libapr0-dev | libapr1-dev soon), and an apt-cache search for "0-dev" on my
The versionings is when stuff change to incompatible APIs, so probably
depending on (l
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ondrej,
> > The source package is named mod-bt. It produces the
> > following .deb's:
> >
> > libbttracker0-dev_0.0.16-1_i386.deb
> > libbtutil0-dev_0.0.16-1_i386.deb
> There's no reason to have the so version in the -dev package name.
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 07:32:06PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ondrej Sury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 08:07 -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> > > * Package name: mod-bt
> >
> > I suggest to name your package (you can name just binary package, bu
Ondrej Sury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 08:07 -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> > * Package name: mod-bt
>
> I suggest to name your package (you can name just binary package, but it
> since you are building just one binary package, it's easier to rename
> source package as
On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 08:07 -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> * Package name: mod-bt
I suggest to name your package (you can name just binary package, but it
since you are building just one binary package, it's easier to rename
source package as well) as libapache-mod-bt to follow common practic
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: mod-bt
Version : 0.0.16
Upstream Author : Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.crackerjack.net/mod_bt/
* License : Apache 2.0
Programming Lang: C, la
12 matches
Mail list logo
