RFC: Soname in rpm name

[Toshio]

On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 16:02 +0100, Aurelien Bompard wrote:
> Harald Hoyer wrote:
> > Or you release a new release of that version which provides the garbage
> > collector symbol, Axel suggested.
> 
> I'd be very happy to do that, but I'd like to know : is this the scheme Red
> Hat is going to be moving to ? Soname in the package name and a
> Provides : shared-library-package
> in the spec file ? Do we agree on this ?
>
> I also think it is a great solution, which adresses correctly all the major
> issues raised here. I'd be very happy to see it become a packaging policy.
> 
I missed Axel's original posting so I may well be missing something:
I thought the discussion was moving towards how to have the user specify
at install time that a package is okay to delete if nothing depends on
it.  Isn't a "Garbage collector symbol" via a Provides done by the
packager at rpm creation time instead?  If so, the user will still have
to manually intervene with the list of garbage collections.  (Although,
it might not be as bad as some of the other schemes out there.)

I'm also still waiting to see why the current de facto scheme of:
  current = libname
  previous  = libname[Version]

is _compellingly_ wrong...  Perhaps there just needs to be a summary of
Pros and Cons so we can see the tradeoffs.

-Toshio
-- 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20050127/ecb52f7a/attachment-0002.bin