On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:03:05 -0500, seth vidal wrote: > > > Well, it started as sqlite3, with good reason. Look: > > > > -rwxr-xr-x root root 29844 /usr/bin/sqlite3 > > lrwxrwxrwx root root 19 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0 > > -rwxr-xr-x root root 316204 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6 > > -rw-r--r-- root root 52690 /usr/include/sqlite3.h > > -rw-r--r-- root root 403624 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.a > > -rwxr-xr-x root root 819 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.la > > lrwxrwxrwx root root 19 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so > > -rw-r--r-- root root 231 /usr/lib/pkgconfig/sqlite3.pc > > > > Sure, the v2 sqlite package could be rename to sqlite0 or sqlite2 if it > > will still be needed. But that's not the point. > > I asked for it to be changed from sqlite3 to sqlite b/c it made little > sense to me that the package should be named sqlite3 when we weren't > providing sqlite(any number) in the rest of the distro. There is little reason to argue about the package name as sqlite3 would have been just fine, but... > add to that the the upstream package name is sqlite, not sqlite3 and I > didn't see a compelling reason to have an odd ball virtual provide (and > dep) for the package. ... such a virtual provides would have been the wrong thing to do, if one wanted to make a separate "sqlite" package coexist with the "sqlite3" package. Upstream has chosen a different namespace, so the versions can coexist (SQLite 2.8.16 is libsqlite.so.0.8.6).
