On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 09:00:30AM +0100, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Michal Vyskocil wrote:
Therefor I have fixed and extended the zlib example[3], which should make that more clear. Source package name is zlib, because that is how both upstream and tarballs are named. But shared library package is libz1 according SONAME, where devel files are in zlib-devel. The name libz-devel might be acceptable as well, but it is confusing to me. But as long as pkgconfig(zlib) is the prefered form, the name of devel package is less important nowadays.
Less important for the build system maybe. I still have a hard time getting used to things like libSDL-devel or worse libopenssl-devel when there isn't even a libopenssl. So I agree, it feels counter
or libqt4 - unfortunatelly I did not catch up libqt5 :-/
intuitive to me too. Naming devel packages according to the shared library only makes sense if the package contains multiple independent shared libraries that have distinct header files. So IMO "%package devel" should be preferred over "%package -n $something-devel"
ack from me - in that case, can you update a wiki page? IOW remove the libz-devel and most prefferably to add an another example, where devel package should be named according shared library? Regards Michal Vyskocil
[1] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy [2] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Package_naming_guidelines#General_Naming [3] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy#Examples
Any objections?
+1
cu Ludwig
-- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org