SDL 2.0 debian package

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

Ops, forgot to include the list in the reply below, sorry for the
double post Sam.


2013/2/18 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com>:
> 2013/2/17 Sam Lantinga <slouken at libsdl.org>:
>> I originally had the name libsdl2, but I looked at the packages for
>> SDL_mixer, SDL_image, etc. and they all had the source package as sdl-mixer,
>> sdl-image, with binary packages libsdl-mixer, libsdl-image, etc.  I spot
>> checked some other libraries and they were set up the same.
>
> It's true that there's no consensus in the project, and even with SDL
> packages.  I failed to mention that the plan was to change all the
> "modules" as well.
>
>
>> I'm happy to flip it back to libsdl2 if that's more correct, but I think I'd
>> want the other libraries filpped as well, e.g. libsdl2-mixer, etc.
>
> Yes, that's the plan for all the sdl2 packages.
>
> (The 1.2 ones will remain the same, they've been like that for more
> than a decade and we don't want to break people's dependencies).
>
>
>> I thought I got a warning if the older changelog entries have a different
>> package name from the most recent entry, but I'm not seeing that now, so
>> I'll revert those.
>
> In general, I don't think that it causes any technical problem --
> other than breaking build-dependencies in other packages'
> debian/control and so on.  That's why it's a good moment to do it now
> with the new versions, people who will change their packages to use
> libsdl2 will have to look carefully at many things anyway.
>
> The change is motivated because it's easier for people to be
> consistent when they (us) want to do things by hand (e.g. "apt-get
> install ${package}", search the packages in the website, find the
> packages in same dirs in the archives, be sorted together in different
> applications, etc).
>
>
> Cheers.
> --
> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com>



-- 
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com>