Hi, On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Michal Vyskocil wrote:
I consider the Shared Library Policy as a bad structured and writted document, so I've decided to restructure to be more readable and give the needed information on the begining. Or to reduce crufty sections, like exceptions and so.
Well, you also removed an important part, when -devel packages need to be versioned.
My attempt is here http://en.opensuse.org/User:Mvyskocil/Shared_library_packaging_policy
For the most part I like the current version better, sorry. I do agree, though, that the libtool section (or better the whole "Versioning schemes" section) has no real place in the policy page. This page is about policy, not about explaining at large how to derive shared library versions. It should be moved to some other wiki page. The current Elibility section is completely off. Its second point as written is plain wrong.
Should be moved to appropriate place in the document, but in overall I see it as a better version if the original, because it try to explain all aspects from the begining. That includes the name of source package, devel package and so.
A policy page should list the policy first, preferably in clear and easily verifyable rules. If rationales are provided at all, they should come _after_ the policy.
But there is the unclear point (and I blame the structure of the policy) - the name of the devel package. The zlib example uses the zlib-devel ($source-devel), which might be the prefered form.
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. Ciao, Michael. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org