Hi, On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Michal Vyskocil wrote:
I hope I did not delete any code, just try to better structure it to be not like a law, but something more understandable.
Actually a policy should really read like a law. Rationales and explanations can go on either extra pages, or at least extra sections after the rules are written down.
The policy doesn't try to enforce any naming scheme on the base part of the -devel package. It's simply out of scope for it. I don't see the need to include any rules. The rules for naming shared libraries have technical reasons (in order to enforce disjoint rpm names), there are no technical reasons to name the base name of -devel packages in any particular way.
I'd say it makes a sense to at least _recommend_ the naming of the other parts (even the -devel package is not really important, as we have now pkgconfig(foo) symbols).
Yes, of course, such scheme can be part of best practices indeed. Ciao, Michael. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org