On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
The Shared Library Packaging Policy says that the name of a library package is to be derived from the library's SONAME. What if there is a compatible alternative implementation of the library? Of course it has the same SONAME. Reusing the same package name would result in version confusion though. Are there any recommendations for naming packages of such alternative implementations?
Hmm. I think I would add a suffix to the lib-package name, ala libopenal1 and libopenal1-alt . I think it's important that the SONAME derived string really is part of the rpmname, so libaltopenal1 would be worse.
Yep, I agree.
Otherwise follow the policy, especially regarding the contents of such packages (i.e. only DSOs). You probable need exception files for the checker. Though, if we could decide on the above Dirk probably can change his checker to ignore -* suffixes in package names. I think you should avoid "well known" suffixes like -dev, -devel, -doc and so on, though, to reduce confusion.
Also remember to add Conflicts tags properly.
Another variant is to use what gcc does for libstdc++ - the packages
are named libstdc++41 libstdc++42 libstdc++43, etc., after the
package version, but all provide libstdc++6 (the SONAME of the
library) like
Provides: libstdc++6 = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: libstdc++6 < %{version}-%{release}
but of course they are not really alternatives but only compatible
(newer) versions.
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther