[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libhistory4, libhistory5, libhistory6(...)

[Philip Brown]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Version bump and split

I have some comments and questions about this split.


1. Is it really beneficial to split out separate "libhistory" and
"libreadline" here?
They will pretty much ALWAYS be upgraded together.
Splitting it makes it almost more likely to have a botched upgrade sometime


2. does it really make sense to have this package named this way, with
your current split?

>  + libreadline_dev-6.2,REV=2011.03.10-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
>  + libreadline_dev-6.2,REV=2011.03.10-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz

Given the naming of the other "separate" libhistory and libreadline,
that almost implies it is only for "libreadline".. which may make
people looking at "libhistory" wonder where its dev files are.
If you're being strictly consistent, seems like you should Either make
a more generic
"readline_dev"

Or, make *both*
libreadline_dev
libhistory_dev


Contrariwise:
It may be simpler to just silently bundle in "libhistory.so.6" in with
the "libreadline6"  package ?
This also matches up with the naming conventions, since the "dev"
files for libhistory, are in
/opt/csw/include/readline/history.h

This implies they are a logical set and should not be split from each other.

thoughts?