Re: Once again: libc6 packages compatibility etc...
On Sat, 20 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!
> > No, I think it's bad. Some packages do have letters in their version
> > numbers (eg. libtool_1.0b). It may at least be legal, even if there is
> > no lib like "libfoo3c" (are there any ?). At least there is possible
> > ambiguity between "libfoo version 3g, libc5-compiled" and "libfoo
> > version 3, libc6-compiled".
> What do you think of my other proposal? (i.e. dropping the "lib" prefix)
I don't think that the prefix is really "redundant". Of course, if you
look in the archive you have the directory "libs", but you don't see this
in the output of "dpkg -l".
Just my 2 cents,
-- Christian Schwarz
Debian is looking firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
for a logo! Have a
look at our drafts PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .