Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (174 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] lib prefix considered harmful
On Tuesday 26 November 2013 10:08:02 Michal Vyskocil wrote:
Hi all,

I would like to point to quite common anti-pattern when packaging shared
libraries. It is great that most of people are aware about our Shared
Library Policy[1]. However it is written in some confusing way, where
some people (and I made it as well) think it mandate the name of
**source** package.

It does not, because noone wants to change source package name on each
SONAME bump. For source package name there is a naming policy [2], which
says package name should be according upstream project or tarball name
(there are exceptions for python, perl, ruby, go, ... stuff). And it is
legal to omit the %files section for source package (but not for

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.


Any objections?

thank you Michal for addressing this in the documentation. I think it now
better matches what we have been recommending to packagers in the past anyway.
Just stating the obvious, we have plenty of those in Factory and I don't think
we'll enforce they have to be fixed with the next submit. It will only be a
requirement for new packages.
With kind regards,
Sascha Peilicke
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend├Ârffer HRB 16746 (AG N├╝rnberg)
< Previous Next >