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

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 12:28:01PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> 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.
> 

Your usage of compat- is contrary to the unwritten rule.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130408/2a8674a9/attachment.sig>