Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (174 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] lib prefix considered harmful
  • From: Ludwig Nussel <ludwig.nussel@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:00:30 +0100
  • Message-id: <5298499E.9010706@suse.de>
Michal Vyskocil wrote:
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.

Less important for the build system maybe. I still have a hard time
getting used to things like libSDL-devel or worse libopenssl-devel
when there isn't even a libopenssl. So I agree, it feels counter
intuitive to me too. Naming devel packages according to the shared
library only makes sense if the package contains multiple
independent shared libraries that have distinct header files. So IMO
"%package devel" should be preferred over "%package -n
$something-devel"

[1] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy
[2] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Package_naming_guidelines#General_Naming
[3] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy#Examples

Any objections?

+1

cu
Ludwig

--
(o_ Ludwig Nussel
//\
V_/_ http://www.suse.de/
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend├Ârffer, HRB
16746 (AG N├╝rnberg)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups
References