[opensuse-packaging] libbz2 has been renamed to libbz2-1

Hello. The libbz2 package has been renamed to libbz2-1 accordint to the policy : http://en.opensuse.org/Shared_Library_Packaging_Policy . Regards Ladislav Michnovic. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

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? Steffen

On 04-06-2007 at 13:05, Steffen Winterfeldt <snwint@suse.de> 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 Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
On 04-06-2007 at 13:05, Steffen Winterfeldt <snwint@suse.de> 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 :-)
# 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. Steffen

On 04-06-2007 at 13:35, Steffen Winterfeldt <snwint@suse.de> 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

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

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 <snwint@suse.de> 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 <rguenther@suse.de> 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

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
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
That's a fair point. I forgot that the package is a new one. Steffen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Monday, 4. June 2007, Cristian Rodriguez R. wrote:
Yes, and package managers are still unable to handle this split properly, effectiely trashing RPM.
There was an ugly prereq tag added to the spec file to fix this. if thats not working the corresponding bugreport should be reopened. Greetings, Dirk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

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.

Hi, On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, 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?
My guess is 10^-12 :-) So it's one of the really less urgent cases of renaming, but hey. Ciao, Michael.
participants (7)
-
Cristian Rodriguez R.
-
Dirk Mueller
-
Dominique Leuenberger
-
Ladislav Michnovič
-
Michael Matz
-
Richard Guenther
-
Steffen Winterfeldt