Re: libfoo.$major requirements/guidelines

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 13:05 Brian J. Murrell <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Create a libfoo1 package, have it include the necessary library files
> (and perhaps a -devel subpackage if you wish for things to compile
> against it) and update the base libfoo package to the new version.

Ok.  So you can/do create a libfoo$major subpackage at times when it's necessary.  It's just not required/recommended to always package libs that way.  Fair enough.

I guess it just seems to me that it would be more consistent/less surprising to have libraries always follow this scheme rather than to do so only intermittently.  But that's just my 2 cents.

I think it comes down to a different philosophy regarding distribution development.

In fedora, the default mode of operation is to move all consumers of a library to the latest version, if possible (this usually happens only in the development /master / rawhide branch). Only of that's not possible easily or in a timely manner, a compatibility package for the older version of the library is introduced. These are then often dropped again as soon as all dependent projects have migrated to the new library version.

If you think of the newest version being the default, it makes sense that it doesn't contain the library version in its package name.

Fabio

_______________________________________________
packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux