[csw-maintainers] commentary on shared library naming proposal

[Philip Brown]

This is starting off a fresh thread, on the proposal being suggested
around naming of packages, that have shared libraries in them.

Maciej was kind enough to write up a web page for it, here:

http://wiki.opencsw.org/packaging-shared-libraries

I have made some very minor updates to it, and corrected the naming
length "32" to "29" .

I then added some areas of concern that I have, to the bottom of the page.

I was originally going to quote them here, but they have become rather long :-/
So perhaps they are better read in the full context of the wiki page, above.


I will also mention, given that Maciej gave the debian sharedlibs
policy (section 8.1) as a reference, if we abided by the WHOLE text of
that section. Again, my further notes on that, are at the bottom of
the wiki page.


General comment I did not add into the wiki: I do not see having "more
packages" as a good in and of itself (and neither does Debian, as I
reference in the page).
If upgrading "libcups" -- what was previously a single package -- now
takes downloading and cycling through (pkgrm, pkgadd) **6** times... I
dont think this looks good to our users.