Stefan van der Eijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed that there is something going on with the way that
> libraries are handled in packages (libraries are being split out into a
> seperate package). I see that this is having some impact on quite some
> packages (packages suddenly have dependacy problems when rebuilding and
> / or installing). I'd like to help with settling this, but before I make
> mistake (and make things worse) I'd like to know if there is an official
> guideline (document?) on this?
I had responded but do not see my response so try again.
Yes the libraries naming scheme is now inspired by the debian ones, here is the
beginning of the policy files concerning this :
Library
-------
In order to have a better upgrade, it is important to keep old major
library versions in the system so that programs which use them still
work.
Libraries in /usr/lib, /lib and /usr/X11R6/lib must be separatly
packaged, in library-only package, named with the name of the main
library concatenated with the major of the library. This package
should not contains any binaries, they should be separately packaged.
The goal is to be able to install libfoo1 and libfoo2 on the same
system.
In the first time it is fundamental that the sources rpm keep the same
name without any major number, so that the CVS repository only contains
one branch for each package.
When the distribution must contains two versions of the same library, for
example qt1 and qt2, sources rpms will be separated so that we can
include the two of them in the distribution. And since then the two
branches will be independently maintained.
example:
foo-2.3.4-4mdk.src.rpm
-> libfoo2-2.3.4-4mdk.arch.rpm
-> libfoo2-devel-2.3.4-4mdk.arch.rpm
-> foo-2.3.4-4mdk.arch.rpm
The devel packages must provide libfoo-devel.
--
Warly
