[PPL-devel] Re: RFC: packaging the PPL for RedHat and Debian

[Michael Tautschnig]

Hello,

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 
considered
- I don't know any official Debian-document regarding this issue, but the 
following bugreport is the source of my concerns:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=273871


> 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:

http://packages.debian.org/testing/source/boost

[...]

Hope to help,
Michael