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

[Roger Håkansson]

On 2010-09-28 02:23, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski wrote:
> No dia 26 de Setembro de 2010 14:37, Philip Brown<phil at bolthole.com>  escreveu:
>> I did not see anything in the proposal that mentioned how to handle
>> catalog naming; only svr4 package names. that is why it seems so
>> clean.
>> once you step into that realm things become more messy.
>> remember that upstream numbering is sometimes out of sync with the lib
>> numbering.
>>
>> your proposal may "simplify" the number of versions of a library per
>> package . however, it will *add* complexity to the naming and package
>> building process in other ways.
>>
>> 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.

Shouldn't that be CSWlibapr1-0?
Or what should you name the package when libapr-1.so.10.0.0 get released?