package naming question: IT++

[Marco Driusso]

Hi all,

I have a question about the right name to give to a package of the IT++ 
library (package review request here -> 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264686, any review - and 
also sponsorship, I need one! - is welcome).

Some info:
- the actual name of the library is 'IT++', according to their web page 
and documentation http://itpp.sourceforge.net/4.3.1/;
- the package used to be called 'itpp' in former versions of the spec in 
Fedora (now dead, since 2011);
- the installed library comes out from the build process as 
'libitpp.so*', but all headers are under %{_includedir}/itpp, of course 
contain a lot of #include <itpp/someheader.h>, and of course all HTML 
documentation is written accordingly (basically, everything is called 
itpp*, except the actual lib file, which is called libitpp.so);
- the package is named 'libitpp' in other distros, e.g. Ubuntu, openSUSE.

So I think we have two options:
1) use 'itpp' as the name of the package, which corresponds to the 
include dir name, but not to the lib file name (libitpp.so); in this 
case we will have:
%{_libdir}/libitpp.so*
%{_includedir}/itpp
%{_datadir}/itpp
%{_docdir}/itpp (<- comes out from %doc directive)

2) use 'libitpp' as the name of the package, but leaving the include dir 
named as %{_includedir}/itpp (since all headers and documentation 
contain several #include <itpp/someheader.h>); in this case:
%{_libdir}/libitpp.so*
%{_includedir}/itpp
%{_datadir}/itpp or %{_datadir}/libitpp (we can change this)
%{_docdir}/libitpp (<- comes out from %doc directive)

What do you think it is the best? (atm in the review we are using choice 
2, but choice 1 seems more tidy).

Marco