Richard Guenther schrieb:

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Cristian Rodriguez wrote:

...

Hi folks:

There are several libraries that ships binary utils that are not needed for the library to work by itself but the library packaging policy nor any other document covers the naming of this packages.

so, how you think the should be called ?

libfooN-util

libfoo-util

libfoo-bin

libfooN-bin

Comments :?

libfoo-tools - at least that is what has the most existing packages (the -tools suffix).

True, but interestingly Novell employees don't seem to like those since for 10.3 I know of one being merged to the library package for a non-reason :-( Wolfgang --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Michael Matz schrieb:

Hi,

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

...

...

libfoo-tools - at least that is what has the most existing packages (the -tools suffix). True, but interestingly Novell employees don't seem to like those since for 10.3 I know of one being merged to the library package for a non-reason :-(

Which one? Because normally that would be against the lib policy (having binaries in the libbla2.rpm).

mozilla-nss which doesn't conform to the lib policy right now at all but at least there were libraries and tools separated but got merged for reasons I don't understand because it easily could have been done using proper dependencies or patterns. Wolfgang --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org