Hi James,
Am 28.09.2010 um 11:00 schrieb James Lee:
On 28/09/10, 01:23:50, Maciej "(Matchek)" Blizinski <[email protected]
>
It's true. Specifically problematic are bits of software that
already
embed a number in the package name, or the soname. For example
apache2rt package contains libapr-1.so.0. The corresponding pkgname
would be something along the lines of CSWlibapr10 or CSWlibapr-10, or
other punctuation variants. These names aren't strikingly pretty,
but
I think it's possible to make them consistent.
These packages are only used as dependencies so the naming doesn't
have
to be appealing. No user should need to directly install a run time.
They should even be in the list offered to users, only the top level
names should be, like jpeg, python.
I guess you mean "They should NOT even be...". Very true. This would
solve one other issue: The JRE can be thought of as a runtime, which
we can not deliver right now as it is not "bundled" with another
Java-package that uses it. "Hiding" some packages from pkg-get/pkgutil
would solve this.
Another thing is, that we don't need to put every shared library in a
separate packages.
Only when the SONAME changes and it's incompatible, like major version
changes on software, eg, apache2.
I am more thinking of krb5_lib which contains a bundle of related
shared libs, each with its own soname-numbering (however, that one
hasn't changed for a long time, so we may be off good here, but the
basic problem remains).
This policy would only apply to libraries that
other packages link to. If a shared library is linked to only by
binaries from the same package, there's no benefit from separating
out
the libraries.
Yes there is, it may change later. That's why we are where we are,
because in the first place there isn't a need.
Right.
Best regards
-- Dago
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
.:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
