[PPL-devel] Re: RFC: packaging the PPL for RedHat and Debian
michael.tautschnig at zt-consulting.com
Tue Mar 1 13:19:45 CET 2005
just to make one thing clear - I can only speak for Debian, I do not know
any of RedHat/Fedora's conventions - but if any conflicts arise, I would
always opt for some compromise instead of sticking to any specific schemes
> > I would like to receive some advice about the packaging of the PPL,
> both for RedHat/Fedora and for Debian. Things that are not clear
> to me is
> 1) how many packages should we have and what should they contain, and
> 2) how should the packages be named.
> For RedHat, we currently have a base package called `ppl' containing
> the core library, plus the documentation and the ppl_lcdd program.
> Then we have the C, GNU Prolog, SWI Prolog, SICStus Prolog and YAP
> Prolog interfaces in the `ppl-c', `ppl-gprolog', `ppl-swi', `ppl-sicstus'
> and `ppl-yap' packages, respectively. The Parma Watchdog Library
> is currently included in the PPL and has a package called `ppl-pwl'.
> Finally, debug information if in `ppl-debuginfo'.
As stated above, I do not know Redhat's conventions, but having many
packages also implies having a lot of metadata. Furthermore I don't know
the size of all the interface-packages, but assuming they are rather
small, I personally would like the idea of only having one ppl-interfaces
- package. Just an idea.
> Michael has suggested that we should name the package `libppl1' and
> I think he will explain us whether this is an important convention
> of Debian or just a matter of personal taste. I do not think that,
> for the PPL, sticking the number after the name is a great idea:
> our library is so special-purpose that coexistence on one system
> of multiple incompatible versions is quite unlikely. In the unlikely
> case this proves to be necessary we will see what to do: e.g.,
> if we have many users depending on PPL 2.45 at the time when we
> release a backward-incompatible PPL 3.0, we will generate a `libppl2'
> or `ppl2'.
Including a number is IMHO
- a question of how stable the interface of the library itself is
- whether dependencies on different versions of g++/libstdc++ should be
- I don't know any official Debian-document regarding this issue, but the
following bugreport is the source of my concerns:
> I guess that, with the proposal of naming the package `libppl' instead
> of `ppl', goes the suggestion that programs like `ppl_lcdd' should not
> go in that package. The question is now how many packages should we have.
> Another issue concerns documentation: should it go in the base package,
> in the `ppl-devel' package, or in a `ppl-doc' package?
> Should static libraries go to the devel package rather than the
> base one? Should we provide versions enabled for profiling?
> By the way: it seems that in Debian development packages use "dev"
> instead of "devel". Is this correct?
Yes, using "dev" is the correct way. To provide an example, I suggest
looking at the naming-schema of the boost-libraries within Debian:
Hope to help,
More information about the PPL-devel