[csw-maintainers] commentary on shared library naming proposal

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi,

Am 24.11.2010 um 17:47 schrieb Philip Brown:
> On 11/24/10, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
> 
> we have an existing de-facto standard to add (*gcc) to package names,
> in multiple use cases. I think for clarity, we should continue our
> standard behaviour there rather than attempting to "save" 3 chars.

To enhance clarity I suggest adding -gcc and _gcc instead just
concatenation which is also more homogenous to the new module
naming (like CSWpm-* for modules).


Best regards

  -- Dago