...

...

On 04-06-2007 at 13:05, Steffen Winterfeldt 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 :-) Regards, Dominique -- TMF is a global management and accounting outsourcing firm with 72 offices in 56 countries and over 2,000 professionals (February 2007). TMF is expanding rapidly throughout the world. Learn more about our unique network and our services and visit our website at www.tmf-group.com. The information contained in this e-mail communication is confidential and solely intended for the person to whom it is addressed. If someone other than the intended recipient should receive or come into possession of this e-mail communication, he/she will not be entitled to read, disseminate, disclose or duplicate it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to notify the sender and to destroy the original e-mail communication. TMF is neither liable for the correct and complete transmission of the information contained in this e-mail communication nor for any delay in its receipt. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for the presence of computer viruses. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

...

...

On 04-06-2007 at 13:35, Steffen Winterfeldt wrote: 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.

Steffe

Well, the question ought to be: what harm does it do if somebody anyhow working on a package just implements the new rule on it? I know that way of following rules: 'it does no harm to anything if I don't folloow it and it was just easier to do it otherwise'. It might not be a high priority task.. but the time is not worse invested than discussing about it forever... Regards, Dominique TMF is a global management and accounting outsourcing firm with 72 offices in 56 countries and over 2,000 professionals (February 2007). TMF is expanding rapidly throughout the world. Learn more about our unique network and our services and visit our website at www.tmf-group.com. The information contained in this e-mail communication is confidential and solely intended for the person to whom it is addressed. If someone other than the intended recipient should receive or come into possession of this e-mail communication, he/she will not be entitled to read, disseminate, disclose or duplicate it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to notify the sender and to destroy the original e-mail communication. TMF is neither liable for the correct and complete transmission of the information contained in this e-mail communication nor for any delay in its receipt. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for the presence of computer viruses. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Steffen Winterfeldt wrote:

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Dominique Leuenberger wrote:

...

...

...

...

On 04-06-2007 at 13:05, Steffen Winterfeldt wrote: On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Ladislav Michnovi? 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.

Note that this particular case (libbz2) was "forced" only because libbz2 was introduced for 10.3 only, so we should actually name it after the policy. And it was actually my fault not naming it correct in the first place. And yes, the consensus in the dist meeting was exactly to _not_ force the naming on existing packages without a good reason (which would be a major update, or that the packager likes to do it). Richard. -- Richard Guenther Novell / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Richard Guenther escribió:

Note that this particular case (libbz2) was "forced" only because libbz2 was introduced for 10.3 only

Yes, and package managers are still unable to handle this split properly, effectiely trashing RPM.

Cristian Rodriguez R. escribió:

Richard Guenther escribió:

...

Note that this particular case (libbz2) was "forced" only because libbz2 was introduced for 10.3 only

Yes, and package managers are still unable to handle this split properly, effectiely trashing RPM.

I'll try again ... later ;). The bug report is still open IIRC though.