[PPL-devel] RFC: packaging the PPL for RedHat and Debian
mattm at comp.leeds.ac.uk
Fri Mar 4 09:41:37 CET 2005
Matthew Mundell <mattm at comp.leeds.ac.uk> writes:
> Roberto Bagnara <bagnara at cs.unipr.it> writes:
>> 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'.
>> 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'.
> Sounds sensible.
Although, the Debian Library Packaging guide has:
Chapter 5. Naming library packages
The policy documents how to name library
packages. "lib[libraryname][SONAME-version-number]" like "libc6" for
so it would be more in keeping to name it libppl5.
Also, should debian/compat in CVS hold 5, to match the current shared
More information about the PPL-devel