[opensuse-packaging] Library naming
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. Just a suggestion, it's too late for 10.3 anyway. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Am Donnerstag 04 Oktober 2007 schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
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
libelf-devel conflicts with libelf0-devel. Where is your point? Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Oct 4 2007 17:25, Stephan Kulow wrote:
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
libelf-devel conflicts with libelf0-devel. Where is your point?
Ah ok, I did not see libelf-devel since I was looking for lib*[0-9]-devel*.rpm. Ok, I try again, with a better package example. 17:36 ichi:/lnk/fac/i586 > l libcurl* -rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 147722 Sep 23 14:50 libcurl-devel-7.16.4-16.i586.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 90925 Sep 22 02:10 libcurl2-7.11.0-32.i586.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 112130 Sep 22 02:19 libcurl3-7.15.5-34.i586.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 118337 Sep 23 14:50 libcurl4-7.16.4-16.i586.rpm There is only one -devel package, and not four. And it's called libcurl-devel and not libcurl4-devel. That's good. But not all packages follow the curl scheme, e.g. libxfcegui4: 17:39 ichi:/lnk/fac/i586 > l libxfcegui4-* -rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 251668 Sep 22 05:35 libxfcegui4-4.4.1-55.i586.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 54708 Sep 22 05:35 libxfcegui4-devel-4.4.1-55.i586.rpm So, could not it just be named libxfcegui-devel? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Am Donnerstag 04 Oktober 2007 schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
On Oct 4 2007 17:25, Stephan Kulow wrote:
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
libelf-devel conflicts with libelf0-devel. Where is your point?
Ah ok, I did not see libelf-devel since I was looking for lib*[0-9]-devel*.rpm. Ok, I try again, with a better package example.
But not all packages follow the curl scheme, e.g. libxfcegui4:
The library is named like this? Check your "shouldn't it be all like in debian" reference: http://packages.debian.org/etch/libxfcegui4-dev You really need to come up with better examples! :) Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Oct 4 2007 17:44, Stephan Kulow wrote:
libelf-devel conflicts with libelf0-devel. Where is your point?
Ah ok, I did not see libelf-devel since I was looking for lib*[0-9]-devel*.rpm. Ok, I try again, with a better package example.
But not all packages follow the curl scheme, e.g. libxfcegui4:
The library is named like this? Check your "shouldn't it be all like in debian" reference: http://packages.debian.org/etch/libxfcegui4-dev
You really need to come up with better examples! :)
Aaaargh. :p Ok, look at libHX10-devel, that's definitely the right example. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
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
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 05:37:28PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
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.
But you can't know in advance if some other version will conflict or not, can you? So shouldn't it be libelf-devel until you know that different versions do not conflict? Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Schroeder mls@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);} --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Hi, On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 05:37:28PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
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.
But you can't know in advance if some other version will conflict or not, can you? So shouldn't it be libelf-devel until you know that different versions do not conflict?
That was the intention, yes. Ciao, Michael. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 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.
This is not necessarily true for all libraries. Libwpd 0.7.x and libwpd 0.8.x can be installed both as shared libraries and developer packages alongside. For libwpd-0.9.x it will be the same. In that case, having libwpd8 and libwpd8-devel would be completely justified. http://libwpd.sf.net Cheers Fridrich -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHBR0Uu9a1imXPdA8RAlbeAJwJbpd5Py/xUtK7svzkghlIHkk2twCfSBuR 3F3aH42UPXMl8wecW1uKUL8= =T/9N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
participants (6)
-
Fridrich Strba -
Jan Engelhardt -
Michael Matz -
Michael Schroeder -
Richard Guenther -
Stephan Kulow