On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 01:15:26AM -0800, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 03:19:31PM -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote: > > On 12/11/22 10:46, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > I think we should just have a libvirt-daemon-common package that > > > includes what you currently have put into the libvirt-daemon-client > > > package plus these files, and have all hypervisor drivers depend on > > > it directly. > > > > Taking a cue from the storage driver, I called it libvirt-daemon-core > > (patches 4-6) in the original RFC > > > > https://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2022-November/235924.html > > > > But I'm fine with libvirt-daemon-common too :-). I'll change it in V2 while > > addressing the other comments. > > I wasn't unable to find a document that contains a formal policy on > this, but my understanding is that foo-core is a stripped-down > version of foo that only contains the very basic functionality, while > foo-common is stuff needed by foo and doesn't do anything useful on > its own. > > Based on this reading, libvirt-daemon-driver-storage-core and > libvirt-daemon-common are the appropriate names for the respective > packages. > > Anyone with actual RPM packaging experience, please call me out if > I'm spouting nonsense :) Once you go beyond -devel, -docs and -libs, sub-RPM naming is almost[1] entirely arbitrary, and at the discretion of the package maintainer With regards, Daniel [1] caveat: programming language specific guidelines may apply -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
