On 9/27/10, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <[email protected]> wrote: > No dia 26 de Setembro de 2010 14:37, Philip Brown <[email protected]> > escreveu: >> >> I'm not neccessarily against it. I'm just pointing out it isn't >> neccessarily the "simple" choice > > 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. >
Side comment: this separation of shared lib binaries into separate packages is entirely possible to do right now. I think the only new "policy" we need to come up with here, is a naming policy, for when the number in the library's SONAME , does not clearly match up with the regular software version number. I'm guessing that debian already has a naming policy for this sort of thing, since I vaguely recall seeing some naming that I considered really ugly at the time. So interested parties should probably do a little research on other distros, to avoid needlessly introducing "yet another naming scheme" if there is an existing accepted one already out there. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
