View Single Post
jeremiah's Avatar
Posts: 170 | Thanked: 261 times | Joined on Feb 2009 @ Gothenburg, Sweden
#68
Originally Posted by mikkov View Post
Are you sure about the debian policy? Source package e2fsprogs builds to e2fsck-static, libcomerr2, comerr-dev, libss2, ss-dev, libuuid1, uuid-runtime, libuuid1-udeb, uuid-dev, libblkid1, libblkid1-udeb, libblkid-dev, e2fsprogs-udeb, e2fslibs, e2fslibs-dev, e2fsprogs, e2fsprogs-dbg, uuid-runtime-dbg, e2fslibs-dbg, libcomerr2-dbg, libss2-dbg, libblkid1-dbg, libuuid1-dbg and these are not virtual packages.

General users who are using application manager have never heard about source packages, so they are not a concern here. For the rest 'apt-get source libss2-dbg' downloads correct source just fine.

But I do agree that package naming should be consistent and reasonable. I just don't think that putting too strict automatic checks is a good idea.
You're definitely right, and any check a QA script might do would be very light, it wouldn't block an upload for example. The debian policy has been modified recently to be more flexible but I think users would benefit from "consistent and reasonable' naming practices.

Last edited by jeremiah; 2009-08-24 at 13:33.