| Steve Langasek 2005-11-29, 7:51 am |
| On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 10:09:00AM -0600, Ming Hua wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:28:05AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I noticed that atlas-cpp with renamed library packages has been
> uploaded, and it renames the binary packages as follows:
> libatlas-cpp-0.6-0 => libatlas-cpp-0.6-0c2
> libatlas-cpp-0.6-0-dbg => libatlas-cpp-0.6-0c2-dbg
> I have two questions for this:
> 1. Should -dbg packages be renamed or not?
I don't see any reason to rename the -dbg packages, generally.
> 2. Shouldn't the suffix be c2a in this case?
Yes, it should. If the package was being renamed because of an soname
change, then there'd be no need for the c2a; but since the package is being
renamed *only* because of the C++ ABI change, being consistent is important
because there way be other packages in the wild named libatlas-cpp-0.6-0c2
which *aren't* using the final mt allocator ABI.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
|