On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Hi,
I notice, for example,
-rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 66727 Sep 22 00:02 libelf0-devel-0.8.9-17.i586.rpm
while I agree with the new naming scheme (libelf0), I do not for -devel packages that cannot reasonably be installed alongside each other. Think of libelf0-devel and libelf1-devel which both provided a file with the same path. Without starting religious issues, would not it be better to just continue on naming such devel packages libelf-devel, without a number, like Debian? That would also reduce newly Obsoletes: tags, because now, a libelf1-devel would need an Obsoletes/Conflicts: libelf0-devel, and that's not really helping.
In cases where -devel packages can be coinstalled (imagine libxml2 and a fictious libxml3 with /usr/include/libxml2 and /usr/include/libxml3, respectively), the number should be kept of course.
That is how the new scheme was designed. If libelf0-devel and
libelf1-devel conflict then the name libelf-devel should have been kept.
(Of course there are some internal problems with that, in case both
libelf versions are in a single build repository. This may be the
reason of the differing names.)
Btw, I only see libelf0 in 10.3.
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther