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

Re: Major number in library package names

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

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: pgp00105.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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