Hi, On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Steffen Winterfeldt wrote:
# 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.
The problem is to foresee the future. In absence of psychic abilities this rule is the only way to make it at least possible to deal with upcoming SONAME changes by installing multiple libbla packages. We could of course enfore the rule only when such SONAME change comes up first from now on, that would still serve that purpose. And that indeed was the initial goal: to apply the rule only if the package was changed anyway, at packager maintainers will. But of course you have to keep more things in mind if you want to postpone the naming scheme change: the package maintainer has to notice the soname change at all (don't laugh, sometimes even that can go by unnoticed); then he has to remember to also change the package name, not just the filelist. The earlier you enforce the new naming scheme, the more probable it becomes that nothing falls through the cracks. So, I would support all attempts to follow that naming scheme even now, where it's perhaps somewhat questionable. I think what triggered you was actually not the usage of the rule itself (the number suffix), but the necessary addition how to deal with package names which already have a numeric last character, which uglifies the package name quite a bit. At least to my eyes libbz2-1 looks extremely ugly. Ask yourself if you really had written a mail if you had seen the introduction of libz1 (instead of zlib). Ciao, Michael. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org