role::devel-lib vs. role::shared-lib

[Justin B Rye]

Benjamin Mesing wrote:
[...]

I for one have never made any particular effort to tag the lib*
section - too much effort for something that seemed like it should
be automatable. 

> What about x11::library?

It might well be that too.  And devel::lib - it's utterly unclear
what that's supposed to be for.
 
> Ok, looking at http://wiki.debian.org/DebTaggingGuidelines it seems like
> role::shared-lib is the way to go. If you agree, I will updated the wiki
> (which still mentions role::sw:shlib).

As I understand it,
role::shared-lib =
	"libfoo": run-time dependencies, usually full of .so files

role::devel-lib =
	"foo-dev" build-time dependencies, usually full of .h files

libfoo-dev packages are usually role::devel-lib, but may be
metapackages or the like.

libfoo-perl packages may be entirely composed of ASCII text, so I
used to tag them as data rather than shlibs; but I've been
persuaded this is the wrong approach, and that any package of
loadable code-modules is role::shared-lib.  The role:: facet is
after all mostly concerned with categorising inter-package
relationships.
 
> lib*, lib*-dev tagging is definitely a candidate for a tagging tip. 

As it happens I was just doing a wave of tagging of *-dev packages,
but as usual I was leaving the lib* ones till last.
 
> @Enrico: if feasible you should make it "next tip" instead of "new tip",
> so one won't end up seeing the same tip again and again.

The new targeted what-to-add-next tips are great.
-- 
JBR
Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing)