Hi Phil, I just got an interesting example so I do post this myself now :-)
On Friday, November 19, 2010, Philip Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/19/10, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Phil, >> >> Am 19.11.2010 um 20:43 schrieb Philip Brown: >>> Note, this is off-list, because I didnt want to needlessly extend an >>> already huge thread, further, if not neccessary :) >>> >>> >>> On 11/19/10, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> ..... >>> >> >> That means: >> - CSWlibxyz may depend on CSWlibxyz-legacy containing legacy libs >> as needed by existing packages >> - CSWlibxyz may depend on CSWlibxyzM and CSWlibxyzN etc. >> - CSWlibxyz must depend on the latest CSWlibxyzZ as it matches -devel >> - CSWlibxyz must depend on CSWlibxyz-devel >> >> In short: CSWlibxyz gets you everything. The name will also be used to >> track bugs for every CSWlibxyz* package and libxyz/ should be the GAR >> directory name. >> > > sounds like we mostly agree. The only difference left is that I dont > like the idea of literally HUNDREDS of empty "CSWlibxyz" packages. I'd > like for them to be actually have some useful content. > > seems to me like having them take on the role of "devel" for "current > version of lib" is a useful thing for them to be doing. I just finished libemf which has an interesting issue which I suggest to split like this: CSWlibemf-devel contains the header files and *.so CSWlibemf1 contains libemf.so.1.0.0 CSWlibemf contains /opt/csw/bin/printemf as part of the lib package Also CSWlibemf depends on both CSWlibemf-devel and CSWlibemf1. Would this be satisfactory? Or better leave the (unnecessary) dependency to CSWlibemf-devel and just depend on the latest runtime lib? Best regards -- Dago _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
