RFC: Soname in rpm name

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 08:45:47PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 
> >>If i understand the argument that people are making... is that doing
> >>it this way... is a burden on 3rd party packagers who have to try to
> >>predict when and if Core is going to introduce a libname[Version] for
> >>previous versions.
> >
> >Whenever that happens - when a Core package is renamed like this - the 3rd
> >party packagers need to update their spec files to make them buildrequire
> >libname[Version]-devel instead.
> 
> I thought the proposal included that each package include
> Provides: libname = %version
> or was that also determined to be problematic?

That would be a way, but I would be less intrusive right now. Just use
foo-devel and have foo-devel require libfoo<major>.

I.e. the libfoo<major> package is nowhere explicitly requested outside
the package itself. That way all packages can be refactored in
asynchronous time w/o changing dependencies of other packages.

Example:

old:
foo-1.2.3-4.src.rpm generates foo-1.2.3-4.i386.rpm
                              foo-devel-1.2.3-4.i386.rpm

new:
foo-1.2.3-4.src.rpm generates foo-1.2.3-4.i386.rpm
                              libfoo5-1.2.3-4.i386.rpm
                              foo-devel-1.2.3-4.i386.rpm

-- 
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/20050128/e0a34265/attachment.sig>