Re: Once again: libc6 packages compatibility etc...
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Brian White wrote:
> > > > Is that correct (including the `g' placement) ?
> > >
> > > Actually I placed the `g' before the version in my package. What is
> > > the correct way to do this? What is Redhat doing?
> > So what's the consensus for the `g' ? Before of after the lib soname ?
> I'll put my vote in for "after". It makes it much easier to see. When
> the "g" is right next to the text name, it's easy to miss.
I agree completely!
> Just a thought to toss around...
> A number of packages are split into pieces something like "libpkg_..."
> and "pkg-dev_...". Becaues of the different prefixes on the name, it
> makes it harder to recognize the packages belong together. In addition,
> since the libs are already under "libs/", the "lib..." prefix is somewhat
> redundant. What if we were to remove the "lib..." prefix to distinguish
> those that depend on libc6? Eventually, once all of libc5 gets purged, we
> would have a somewhat cleaner looking system.
This is a very good idea!
I am currently re-working the gmp library package to deal with the .so
numbering in the correct way. As a result, I will have a libc5 linked
version 1.3.x (that provides libraries discontinued in 2.0.2) as well as
the libc6 linked 2.0.x.
If I follow Brian's idea I will have the following:
libgmp1_1.3.2-6 libc5 version
gmp2_2.0.2-3 libc6 version
These can both reside in the libs section without confusion, since they
will clearly be in seperate portions of the list.
Doesn't this remove the need for the g and alt identifier strings?
I like it.
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: email@example.com Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .