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

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 8.4.2013 17:05, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
> 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.
>

Would you mind to explain yourself a bit more please?

Ah, ok, so let me quote you [1]:

"compat-foo is not for packages in Fedora. It is the shared libraries 
that are necessary for thirdparty packages to run with the old versions 
of the libraries."

However, there are probably exception in the same sense as my proposal. 
That is perfectly fine for me. So compat- is probably not a good idea. 
If you say that, we could have already updated revision of the draft.


Vít



[1] 
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2009-August/006431.html