Hi,
Am 28.09.2010 um 11:05 schrieb Dagobert Michelsen:
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.
And Oracle Instantclient. Making packages not directly downlable
should be seriously considered as it would make using packages
relying on Java and the Oracle client *a lot* easier. Apart from
that the packages are essentially ready for release.
Best regards
-- Dago
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
.:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
