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

Re: How about some uniformity in doc names

On Mon, Oct 11, 1999 at 03:17:29PM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 23:47 +0200 1999-10-11, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> >Maybe should the policy told about libraries, too?
> >The common naming scheme is 'lib*', but there are 'xlib6g' and 'zlib1g'
> >which broke this convention.
> policy already knows about libraries, the two packages you cite are 
> examples of packages named wrongly, but it is currently not possible 
> to smoothly rename them due to the lack of versioned provides in dpkg.
> As zlib maintainer, I have developed a plan to phase in 'libz1' over 
> time, I have figured out how to do it without versioned provides.

Well, I'm not sure the xlib6/xlib6g packages are named *wrongly*, exactly.

The zlib package provides exactly one shared object: libz.so.x.y.z.

The X library packages provide several libraries, only one of which is
libX11.so.x.y.z, a.k.a. Xlib.


I'm not sure busting xlib6g into 12 library packages would be all that
great an idea.  On the other hand, with the forthcoming Xaw version 7 --
and nothing else getting a major number version that high, it may become

Nevertheless, I'd like to know what your libz transition plan might be, so
that I can have it as an option should this change in the future.

G. Branden Robinson              |     We either learn from history or,
Debian GNU/Linux                 |     uh, well, something bad will happen.
branden@ecn.purdue.edu           |     -- Bob Church
cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgprbgAjEDsnt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: