On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Dominique Leuenberger wrote: > >>> On 04-06-2007 at 13:05, Steffen Winterfeldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Ladislav Michnovič wrote: > > > >> The libbz2 package has been renamed to libbz2-1 accordint to the > policy : > >> http://en.opensuse.org/Shared_Library_Packaging_Policy . > > > > Admittedly, I've no deep insight into the ongoing hot bzip2 > development. But > > what exactly are the chances that there will be a need for libbz2-2 > within > > the next, say, 297 years? > > > > Well, I guess we'll not survive the day to have a libbz2-2. But the > goal of a rule is not to deal with exceptions as exceptions. And the > rule we have now states clearly that this lib should be called libbz2-1, > even if we should never have an update on it. > > And I think as long as the rule can be kept upright, it should not have > an exception for something like this. The point for an exception will be > early enough... promise :-)
# ls -l lib*-[0-9]*.rpm | grep -v devel | grep -v debug | wc -l 5 vs. # ls -l lib*.rpm | grep -v devel | grep -v debug | wc -l 382 Ah yes. Seems to be a rule that's really urgently needed. While I agree that the mentioned scheme makes a lot of sense for, e.g, libdb, I can't see any practical value in forcing it on existing packages. Steffen
