[PPL-devel] Re: RFC: packaging the PPL for RedHat and Debian
michael.tautschnig at zt-consulting.com
Fri Mar 4 11:14:42 CET 2005
> The name would have change from release to release, since we are nowhere
> near to offer any kind of backward compatibility. We cannot offer
> source compatibility, let alone binary compatibility. If this proposal
> means we have to create by hand files called libppl<n>*
> for <n> = 5, 6, 7, ... one unrelated from the other as far as CVS
> is concerned, then I oppose this proposal. Even automatizing
> the creation of this files names libppl<n> from another source
> with a stable name seems _really_ overkill at this stage.
> Our 5 Debian users will have to uninstall the old PPL version when
> installing a new one. Keeping them both would be completely nonsensical
> today and even two years from now. The parallel with libc makes no sense:
> in a GNU/Linux system _everything_ depends on libc, so there this
> versioning thing is vital to make the system practically upgradable.
> I propose we try to end up with something that works, to start with,
> omitting the version number from the package names.
> When we have something that works, then we will decide what to do...
> trying not to forget that the best is the enemy of the good.
Ok, that's just fine - I'll still try to find a solution - and if I find
one, I will tell you... But - there is no need to uninstall the packages
manually - if you just increase the version numbers, the debian-packaging
system will take care of uninstalling older versions (of the same
package). If you ever rename it to libppl<version-number>, you could add
a "Replaces: libppl" - line to the control file.
> So Matthew, what do we miss to make this Debian packaging system
Well, my name is not Matthew - but I suggest
- debian/docs should probably contain BUGS README TODO and CREDITS
- debian/rules is still missing
More information about the PPL-devel