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
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