Bug#863030: Do not encode soversion in source and dev package name

[Michael Biebl]

Am 17.07.2017 um 08:48 schrieb Simon Josefsson:
> Hi Michael.  I don't agree with renaming the package name.  The debian
> policy manual says in section 8.1 [1] that:
> 
>        The run-time shared library must be placed in a package whose
>        name changes whenever the SONAME of the shared
>        library changes.  This allows several versions of the shared
>        library to be installed at the same time, allowing installation
>        of the new version of the shared library without immediately
>        breaking binaries that depend on the old version.  Normally,
>        the run-time shared library and its SONAME symlink should be
>        placed in a package named librarynamesoversion, where soversion
>        is the version number in the SONAME of the shared library.
>        Alternatively, if it would be confusing to directly append
>        soversion to libraryname (if, for example, libraryname itself
>        ends in a number), you should use libraryname-soversion instead.
> 
> This is what I believe we are doing.  Can you explain more in detail
> what is wrong?  From my reading, we are doing what we should do, and
> what you suggest would not be consistent with the above.
> 

I'm talking about the the dev and source package, not the library
package, i.e.
using a soversion in
Package: libidn2-0
is fine, but it's wrong for

Source: libidn2-0
Package: libidn2-0-dev


Use
Source: libidn2
Package: libidn2-dev
instead

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature