I did not see anything in the proposal that mentioned how to handle catalog naming; only svr4 package names. that is why it seems so clean. once you step into that realm things become more messy. remember that upstream numbering is sometimes out of sync with the lib numbering.
your proposal may "simplify" the number of versions of a library per package . however, it will *add* complexity to the naming and package building process in other ways. I'm not neccessarily against it. I'm just pointing out it isn't neccessarily the "simple" choice _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
