OK, many thanks for the replies. Go for plain 'itpp'.
For anyone interested in reviewing the package, this is the bugzilla
ticket, I need a sponsor! ->
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264686
Cheers,
Marco
On 22/09/15 13:33, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jwakely@xxxxxxxxxx>>wrote:
On 22/09/15 10:40 +0200, Marco Driusso wrote:
So I think we have two options:
1) use 'itpp' as the name of the package, which corresponds to
the include dir name, but not to the lib file name (libitpp.so);
in this
All libraries start with "lib" but that doesn't mean the package that
provides a library should do.
Look at the output of rpm -qf /usr/lib64/lib* and you'll see most of
them are not called "libxxx" just because they install a file called
"libxxx.so". e.g. gtk3 installs libgtk-3
The project is called IT++, it installs headers in <itpp/*> and
installs libitpp.so, so itpp seems the most natural name.
If this wasn't a library that's linked at compile time, I would suggest
also including a "Provides: libitpp" line in there too, but I think
that's not necessary, since packages that would depend on it would use
the library dependency "libitpp.so.8" instead, which there should be an
automatic Provides generated in the itpp package.
Basically, RPM does nice things for you, so you don't have to care (as
much) about this kind of stuff.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
