strawpoll generic packages

[Jonathan Riddell]

On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 11:22:52AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 04, 2014 12:42:19 Harald Sitter wrote:
> > foo-data (sourcename based)
> > vs.
> > libfoo1-data (library +soversion based)
> > vs.
> > libfoo-data (library without soversion based)
> > 
> > on a related note... what about -dev and -dbg packages?
> > 
> > personally I'd go for libfoo-data by default. if a package has
> > multiple libraries it should be foo-data instead though.
> > same goes for -dev, although I'll also argue that with multiple libs
> > there should either be multiple dev packages or the libs should not be
> > split to begin with. personally I don't see the point in splitting kio
> > for example.
> > 
> > HS
> 
> Seems fine.  I care more that we agree with Debian on this than any particular 
> naming scheme.

Debian didn't have straight answers when I asked them.  I tossed a
coin and chose libfoo5-dbg and libfoo-dev and libfoo-data.  I don't
think it's practicle or beneficial to split -dev packages if there are
multiple libraries but these days the fashion is to split out
libraries into their own packages.

Jonathan