Version number in package name makes life hard
Bug #662398 reported by
Tim Nicholas
This bug report was converted into a question: question #130012: Version number in package name makes life hard.
This bug affects 1 person
| Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| openldap (Ubuntu) |
Invalid
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned | ||
Bug Description
I'm sure this has been noted before but I can't find an explanation.
Why are non-major version numbers in the package names for the openldap libraries? Package names like 'libldap-2.4-2' seem to make it unnecessarily hard to package third party software with sensible dependencies.
Is there a good excuse for this?
I don't know a huge amount about debian packaging but is there an obvious way another package could specify something like "libldap > 2.3"? Would that be possible if the libldap2.4blahblah package had a 'provides' specification?
Cheers,
Tim
Revision history for this message
| Arnaud Soyez (weboide) wrote | #1 |
| Changed in openldap (Ubuntu): | |
| status: | New → Invalid |
To post a comment you must log in.
I might not be 100% accurate and everyone is free to correct me... but here's the main idea:
The purpose is to avoid API and ABI breakage between your program and the library if there is a major .
Your package should actually only have build-depends to libldap2-dev in the debian/control file, and the packaging toolchain will automatically add a dependency to the specific binary package (libldap2.4-X) during the build process.
For example:
Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 7), libgstreamer0.
You might be also interested in http://