On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 03:18:27PM -0500, Boris Kolpackov wrote: > Suppose I have a "library core name" `foo'. The end product will be > say `/usr/lib/libfoo.so.1.2'. So what should I name my source distribution? > Before I would name the top level directory just `foo' then, when releasing, > it will become `foo-1.2.3' and packaged as `foo-1.2.3.tar.bz2'. This will > turn into two debian packages `libfoo1.2' and `libfoo1.2-dev'. And the source package name will conflict with an application called foo, thus causing much wailing and gnashing of teeth. > But I kind of like this `lib' prefix so I thought why don't I name the > top-level directory `libfoo' (I don't like `libfoo1.2.3', though). At > the same time if libfoo happened to have a directory in /usr/include > I would like it to be /usr/include/foo not /usr/include/libfoo. This > seems like a good idea to me but I would love to heard your comments > or suggestions on this. I think that attaching the lib prefix to your source package is a good idea, as it keeps everything nicely identified together. And I see no reason not to have your include files in a directory called foo rather than libfoo, too. It keeps the -I and -l entries consistent. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature