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

Re: name for a library

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

Reply to: