[csw-maintainers] An idea for a shared libraries policy

[Philip Brown]

On 9/27/10, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <maciej at opencsw.org> wrote:
> No dia 26 de Setembro de 2010 14:37, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>
> escreveu:
>>
>> I'm not neccessarily against it. I'm just pointing out it isn't
>> neccessarily the "simple" choice
>
> It's true.  Specifically problematic are bits of software that already
> embed a number in the package name, or the soname.  For example
> apache2rt package contains libapr-1.so.0.  The corresponding pkgname
> would be something along the lines of CSWlibapr10 or CSWlibapr-10, or
> other punctuation variants.  These names aren't strikingly pretty, but
> I think it's possible to make them consistent.
>

Side comment: this separation of shared lib binaries into separate
packages is entirely possible to do right now. I think the only new
"policy" we need to come up with here, is a naming policy, for when
the number in the library's SONAME , does not clearly match up with
the regular software version number.

I'm guessing that debian already has a naming policy for this sort of
thing, since I vaguely recall seeing some naming that I considered
really ugly at the time.
So interested parties should probably do a little research on other
distros, to avoid needlessly introducing "yet another naming scheme"
if there is an existing accepted one already out there.