RFC: Soname in rpm name

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:45:47 -0600 (CST), Rex Dieter 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?

Unfortunately, that's a rather short example. Can you extend that a bit,
please, or point me to the full-blown proposal? What is %version here?
The same old version as we know it? How exactly does it look like in a
library package, it's -devel counterpart and a spec file which
buildrequires this thing? So far, we've had "Buildrequires: taglib-devel"?
What would it look like instead?