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. /usr/X11R6/lib/libICE.so.6.3 /usr/X11R6/lib/libPEX5.so.6.0 /usr/X11R6/lib/libSM.so.6.0 /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6.1 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXIE.so.6.0 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXaw.so.6.1 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6.3 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXi.so.6.0 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXmu.so.6.0 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXp.so.6.2 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXt.so.6.0 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXtst.so.6.1 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 necessary. 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:
pgpssQuwUt2XX.pgp
Description: PGP signature