On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > Hi, > > > I notice, for example, > > -rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 66727 Sep 22 00:02 libelf0-devel-0.8.9-17.i586.rpm > > while I agree with the new naming scheme (libelf0), I do not for -devel > packages that cannot reasonably be installed alongside each other. > Think of libelf0-devel and libelf1-devel which both provided a file with > the same path. Without starting religious issues, would not it be better > to just continue on naming such devel packages libelf-devel, without a > number, like Debian? That would also reduce newly Obsoletes: tags, > because now, a libelf1-devel would need an Obsoletes/Conflicts: > libelf0-devel, and that's not really helping. > > In cases where -devel packages can be coinstalled (imagine libxml2 and a > fictious libxml3 with /usr/include/libxml2 and /usr/include/libxml3, > respectively), the number should be kept of course.
That is how the new scheme was designed. If libelf0-devel and libelf1-devel conflict then the name libelf-devel should have been kept. (Of course there are some internal problems with that, in case both libelf versions are in a single build repository. This may be the reason of the differing names.) Btw, I only see libelf0 in 10.3. 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]
