|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | nondevel packages contain devel libraries | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [openSUSE] openSUSE 11.2 | Reporter: | Stefan Behlert <behlert> |
| Component: | Other | Assignee: | Petr Uzel <puzel> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | E-mail List <qa-bugs> |
| Severity: | Minor | ||
| Priority: | P4 - Low | CC: | behlert, chris, coolo, dmueller, jmatejek, kde-maintainers, meissner, mrueckert, nadvornik, puzel, ro |
| Version: | Alpha 0 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Other | ||
| OS: | Other | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Found By: | --- | Services Priority: | |
| Business Priority: | Blocker: | --- | |
| Marketing QA Status: | --- | IT Deployment: | --- |
| Bug Depends on: | 450061 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Stefan Behlert
2009-05-18 14:04:31 UTC
pth is split to libpth20 and pth-devel It should be libpth-devel, not pth-devel ... I had a discussion about this with darix and his suggestion was pth-devel. Why do you think pth-devel is wrong? I understood from the following document that packages containing devel files for certain library should have name in form libfoo-devel, not foo-devel. http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/Shared_Libraries Even when the name of upstream package is just pth (not libpth)? There are more such packages: gmime, boost, ... If you still think it is wrong, please reopen this bug. Thanks I think for shared libraries we prefer to follow the shared library policy naming: http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/Shared_Library_Packaging_Policy Dirk: that's the exact link I posted :-) The problem is that the policy does not specify clearly enough whether the "lib" should be used in the names of -devel packages (regardless of the upstream name). see Examples - zlib vs libz-devel and section 4b. pth-devel renamed to libpth-devel Hi, reading and understanding are really two parts. libpth20, and pth-devel because Exception 4b is telling: If more than one version of a -devel package can be installed at the same time the -devel packages should be suffixed with a number that allows identifying the version of the library ==> So such a -devel package would be named lib$NAME$NUM-devel This is not the case here. devel package need to named pth-devel. Kind Regards Chris As far as I understand, the exception 4b only states that if some condition is true, then the package should be named lib$NAME$NUM-devel. But it doesn't state that if the same condition is false (pth's case), then the package can not be named lib$NAME$NUM-devel. I agree with comment #7 and therefore I'm not going to rename the package again, sorry. |