[csw-maintainers] commentary on shared library naming proposal

[Peter FELECAN]

"Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski" <maciej at opencsw.org> writes:

> There's an issue that the proposal hasn't addressed so far:
>
> Package names for two packages with the same soname.
>
> One example could be a Sun compiler and GCC versions of a C++ library.
>  Both compilations will result in the same soname.  Should we try to
> achieve a standard naming technique for these?  For example:
>
> CSWlibfoo1 for the Sun one
> CSWlibfoo1-gcc for the GCC one

Isn't there a case when we need:

CSWlibfoo1 for the Sun one
CSWlibfoo1-gcc3 for the GCC 3 one
CSWlibfoo1-gcc4 for the GCC 4 one

> Or, more generally, how should the new package differentiate from the
> previous one - by adding a prefix, or a postfix?  Should the
> pre/postfix have a certain format, such as: "only [a-z], up to 3
> chars", etc?

Use only suffixes from a limited and well defined set, such as {gcc}.
But, is there other use case for this? If this is the only use case,
we can use a "-g" suffix, e.g., CSWlibfoo1-g

-- 
Peter