Hi Carsten, > Am 09.12.2015 um 14:40 schrieb Carsten Grzemba <[email protected]>: > > > > On 09.12.15 12:47, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Am 09.12.2015 um 12:24 schrieb Juraj Lutter <[email protected]>: >> > On 12/09/15 12:20, Laurent Blume wrote: >> >> Le 2015/12/09 12:13 +0100, Carsten Grzemba a écrit: >> >>> Hi folks, >> >>> >> >>> for SVR4 packages we use a concept to package shared libs, header files >> >>> and manuals in own packages like: >> >>> CSWlibssl1-0-0 CSWlibssl-dev CSWopenssl-utils >> >>> Although there are facets for IPS packages, I would suggest to keep this >> >>> concept also for IPS packages >> >> Agreed. Facets are another needlessly confusing innovation, different >> >> for the sake of difference. >> > >> > I'd preferably go with facets, to be more consistent with IPS concepts. >> > We can disaggree with them but they are here and we could probably avoid >> > problems that may arise in the future. >> >> +1 for facets, the selection can be done automatically by GAR in much the >> same >> way as it is now with PKGFILES_DEVEL. Same goes for language support. > But it is no solution for shared libraries, if there are different versions > needed by different packages.
Definitely not, for the shared libs I would stick to the OpenCSW naming by including the soname into the package name. Best regards — Dago -- "You don't become great by trying to be great, you become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." - xkcd #896
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
