libtool vs. libtool-devel

[skip at pobox.com]

    >> Given the naive view that a larger version number implies something a
    >> bit more current and "-devel" implies something a bit more
    >> development- oriented, shouldn't the libtool-devel port either be
    >> renamed or deleted altogether?

    Ryan> The "-devel" suffix indicates a development
    Ryan> (non-production-quality, pre-release) version of a port, according
    Ryan> to the definition of the developer of the software.

Sorry, I'm used to common convention in the Linux arena where the XXX-devel
package contains the .h files and such necessary to compile code that uses
XXX, while XXX is a binary containing the libXXX library (.so files, etc).

    Ryan> To what would you suggest the port name be changed? I think the
    Ryan> name "libtool-devel" is accurate, since the port does install a
    Ryan> development version of libtool.

    Ryan> It can be deleted, but presumably the better course of action
    Ryan> would be to update it to the latest development version of
    Ryan> libtool.  Although, according to
    Ryan> http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/, 1.9f is the latest
    Ryan> development version, though it is over 3 years old. I guess the
    Ryan> 2.1a version is newer, but they seem to be releasing daily new
    Ryan> versions of 2.1a, which isn't helpful.

Given that it's unmaintained, I can't see that deleting it should be all
that big a deal.  It's apparently way behind the current development
bleeding edge (which as you suggest might leave one pretty bloody to use
it).  I guess that given the meaning of "-devel" (is that a consistent
meaning throughout MacPorts?), it's best left as-is.

Once burned, twice shy, so I will stay away from -devel packages in the
future unless there is no alternative.

Thanks,

Skip