Explicit versioning of library names [was Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit]

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 5.4.2013 22:03, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:53:53AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Dne 4.4.2013 20:07, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
>>> There is also an unwritten (I think it's unwritten.  A quick search didn't
>>> find it in the guidelines) rule that in Fedora, the current version of the
>>> library carries the base name.  Older libraries carry the version in the name.
>> Interesting ... it seems time is changing. I made several attempts to
>> make this unwritten rule to be written, the last wrap up and my
>> latest proposal can be found here: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-October/008740.html
>>
> Your proposals keep failing because they run contrary to the unwritten
> rules rather than canonifying them.

May be I missing something, but what is different in

> Always consider to let a nonversioned package to follow an upstream
> release versions. The other versions of package kept in Fedora for
> compatibility reasons should be either prefixed by compat- prefix or
> their name should be suffixed by version string.


contrary to

 > the current version of the library carries the base name. Older 
libraries carry the version in the name.


Vít