RFC: Soname in rpm name

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 11:34:03AM +0100, Aurelien Bompard wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> A question to packagers: what would you think of a policy to add the library
> soname in package libraries ?

Yes, please. This is very important for smooth upgrades, i.e. no
pressure to rebuild all dependent packages in one atomic step. This
becomes even more important for a community with multiple repos like
fedora core is evolving to.

> For example, I have a libkexif package, which
> provides libkexif.so.0, and at least 3 applications depend on it. Now there
> is an update to libkexif, which provides libkexif.so.1. I can't update
> libkexif without updating the applications depending on it.
> OK, this is probably something that you know much better than me, and that
> you've run into several times before, so you probably already know the
> solution. I've searched a bit, and it seems that Mandrake and Debian both
> have a policy to include the library soname in the package name :
> http://qa.mandrakesoft.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/RpmHowToAdvanced#Library_policy
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html
> 
> How about a similar policy for Fedora ? Is it the best solution to this
> problem ?

I think this is an area, where other distributions have found nice
solutions and Fedora/Red Hat should simply use one of the existing
policies (instead of creating one from scratch). I think there aren't
that big differences in Mandrake's vs Debian's policies.

BTW ATrpms has been converting library packages to use this scheme for
quite some time in order to have good gluing components between the
various repos.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20050124/012d2188/attachment.sig>