Hi Dago, On 09.12.15 14:43, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Carsten, > > > > > > > > Am 09.12.2015 um 14:40 schrieb Carsten Grzemba <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > On 09.12.15 12:47, Dagobert Michelsen <[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. > > >
Ok, so we need the pathfilter also for IPS and the mgar package target has to be able to build multiple packages also. Perhaps we can keep the PACKAGES like SRV4 but substitute the dev and doc packages by facets?
