From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: i2c-tools: Discussion points about future library Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 21:23:23 +0200 Message-ID: <20120404212323.59053a1f@endymion.delvare> References: <20120404160113.2295c636@endymion.delvare> <20120404174158.GA19773@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120404174158.GA19773-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Linux I2C , Aurelien Jarno List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hi Mark, On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:41:58 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > 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). Oh, OK, so I completely misinterpreted the -dev. I am used to -devel for development packages (openSUSE) so the connection did not happen in my brain. Of course it makes sense now. So I guess I'll name the library libi2c. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare