On 2010-09-28 02:23, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski wrote:
No dia 26 de Setembro de 2010 14:37, Philip Brown<[email protected]> escreveu:
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
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.
Shouldn't that be CSWlibapr1-0?
Or what should you name the package when libapr-1.so.10.0.0 get released?
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
.:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
