On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, David Walser wrote: > Well I can certainly believe that, but this highlights > how confusing this is. If the "libuser" package had a > more descriptive name, it would be better. And if > there are other packages named like libfoo that don't > contain a library, but something else, maybe they need > to fixed too. Writing a spec file or something, I > would expect to be able to say libfoo and mean the > library libfoo.
Blame RH, they wrote the library, named it, and made the first libuser package (I guess). Douda is just keeping compatability. IMHO, package should be: foo (source package) foo (main package, if appropriate, or for config files required by packages using libfoo) libfooX libfooX-devel (-static too of course) foo-utils (other binaries that come from the same, but aren't required for libfooX or packages using it) But, when someone goes and names the source package libfoo (as in this case), it makes things more difficult. Regards, Buchan -- |----------------Registered Linux User #182071-----------------| Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 ****************************************************************** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. ******************************************************************
