From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: i2c-tools: Discussion points about future library Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:41:58 +0100 Message-ID: <20120404174158.GA19773@sirena.org.uk> References: <20120404160113.2295c636@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120404160113.2295c636-R0o5gVi9kd7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: Linux I2C , Aurelien Jarno List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 04:01:13PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > First point is the name of the library. My original intent was to name > it libi2c-dev, because the library is essentially a front-end to the > i2c-dev kernel driver, and also because this is what Debian named their > package currently containing the (i2c-tools flavor of) > . However Aur??lien Jarno suggested that libi2c would > be just as fine, and easier/shorter. I am mostly convinced by now. I am > curious if anyone wants to express an opinion on the matter? FWIW the Debian convention is that the source package of a library is called libfoo building packages libfoo-dev with the headers and .so symlink to link against (or .a for a static library) and libfooN with the runtime in it (where N is the soname).