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

[Matthew Mundell]

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
    /lib/libc.so.6

so it would be more in keeping to name it libppl5.


Also, should debian/compat in CVS hold 5, to match the current shared
object version?