Matthew Mundell wrote:
I'd opt for
- libppl<soversion>
- libppl-<language><soversion>
- libppl-dev
- libppl-doc
An alternative:
- libppl5
- libppl5-<language>
- libppl5-dev ; which includes all interface dev
- libppl5-doc
Is 5 correct? With the CVS head installed, this:
objdump -p /usr/local/lib/libppl.so | grep SONAME
returns:
SONAME libppl.so.5
The name would have change from release to release, since we are nowhere near to offer any kind of backward compatibility. We cannot offer source compatibility, let alone binary compatibility. If this proposal means we have to create by hand files called libppl<n>* for <n> = 5, 6, 7, ... one unrelated from the other as far as CVS is concerned, then I oppose this proposal. Even automatizing the creation of this files names libppl<n> from another source with a stable name seems _really_ overkill at this stage. Our 5 Debian users will have to uninstall the old PPL version when installing a new one. Keeping them both would be completely nonsensical today and even two years from now. The parallel with libc makes no sense: in a GNU/Linux system _everything_ depends on libc, so there this versioning thing is vital to make the system practically upgradable.
I propose we try to end up with something that works, to start with, omitting the version number from the package names. When we have something that works, then we will decide what to do... trying not to forget that the best is the enemy of the good.
So Matthew, what do we miss to make this Debian packaging system happy? Ciao,
Roberto