Would be a very good idea, but it will not happen, as it has been suggested numerous times and fallen into /dev/null. Nevertheless my 2 cents below. On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 10:24:20PM -0400, Toshio wrote: > I ran rpmlint on the qof library package I just made and had it tell me: > > qof-0.5.0: > E: qof incoherent-version-in-name 0.5.0 > The package name should contain the major version of the library. > > qof-devel-0.5.0: > W: qof-devel no-major-in-name qof-devel > The major number of the library isn't contained in the package name. > > What do people think? Is it good practice to include the major number > in the name of the package (qof0-0.5.0 similar to gtkhtml3 and db4) or > is this just rpmlint being overzealous? Splitting out the shared libs in its own subpackage and including the major version by default is a very good idea, as it obsoletes the need for creating compatibility libs (backward and forward!). The only drawback is orphaned libs when no other app need them, which is the same for compatibility libs as created today. That drawback is reduced to zero, if all such "disposable" packages would Provide: runtime-package or something like that, that a package-garbage collector could identify and throw them out of the system when they are not in use anymore (and apt/yum would get them back if an app to install would require them). This also helps migrating apps from on lib version to another. No need to rebuild all dependent packages the moment a lib major version get bumbed up. This model stems from Mandrake and they have been successfully using it. Have a look at recent ATrpms package to see some Fedora implementations :) On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:17:29PM -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote: > However, imho a better solution is to let rpm do what it was coded to do > - figure out shared library provides and dependencies with the > AutoReqProv functions it has. That's imho much better 100% with you, the names chosen for the shared libs should never explicitely enter the dependencies! rpm already does the right job. But having the major library version in the name solves other issues, as outlined above :) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpyylqLt3vtp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
