On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
> Hallo.
>
> I saw many renames of packages in the last days. We follow shared
> library packaging conventions, but this policy says nothing about
> renaming of source package.
>
> I think, that it would be a good practice to use the same name for both
> devel and source package. It's more convenient and even simpler to do it
> in the spec.
>
> I propose to add following line to the Packaging/Shared Library
> Packaging Policy:
>
> "Source packages should in general omit $NUM as .src.rpm packages for
> different library versions and should follow -devel package naming."
>
>
> In practice it will bring more convenient .src.rpm naming and nicer spec
> files and less number of renames and drops in the repositories.
>
>
> Deprecated:
>
> Name: libfoo_1_2_3
> Version: 1.2.3
> %define orig_name libfoo
> Source: %{orig_name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
> ...
> %files
> ...
> %files -n %{orig_name}-devel
>
> It produces:
> libfoo_1_2_3-1.2.3.i586.rpm
> libfoo-devel-1.2.3.i586.rpm
> libfoo_1_2_3-1.2.3.src.rpm
>
>
> Proposed:
>
> Name: libfoo
> Version: 1.2.3
> Source: %{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
> ...
> %files -n libfoo_1_2_3
> ...
> %files devel
>
> It produces:
> libfoo-1_2_3-1.2.3.i586.rpm
> libfoo-devel-1.2.3.i586.rpm
> libfoo-1.2.3.src.rpm
Just to add my 2 cents - the proposed way is the way I suggested it
done. Even further I thought to avoid renaming the source rpm at all
(which would most of the time result in the above proposed scheme).
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Novell / SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
