[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cups

Philip Brown phil at bolthole.com
Tue Nov 9 17:47:23 CET 2010

On 11/9/10, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <maciej at opencsw.org> wrote:
> No dia 8 de Novembro de 2010 20:10, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>
> escreveu:
>> bug #2: erm... so how come something named "libcups **2**", has
>> version=1.4.4  ?
>> that's very confusing.
> It's the same naming scheme as with every other shared library.  If
> you look at the soname, it's libcups.so.2, which gives us CSWlibcups2.
>  It has been built from cups sources version 1.4.4, and hence the
> version.

I dont think "the same as every other shared library" quite fits,
here. There are many libxxx packages that do not fit that naming
I'm thinking this is the "new" library naming scheme you proposed, yes?

Do we have the specifics of the proposal up somewhere, either  on main
site, or on wiki?
If not, please put it up: i think we need to work on it a little more.
out some glitches in it.
Although your libpython seems relatively fine.
your libcups2 package does not match that. oh wait, it sort of does...
this is a single-digit-rev shared lib.
Which fits my original addendum to the proposal, if I recall:
"[libraries with single-digit (version numbers in the file) do not
usually need to be split out"

This would seem to be the case for cups, where the SONAME has not
changed in over 3 years.

using our existing defacto standards of naming, having


usually means two separate, different-by-major-number versions of the software.
So libcups2 is confusing.
softname2_x_y  is a bit more indicative of the sharedlib scheme you've proposed.
Perhaps the proposal needs something a bit more explicit to denote
"this is a split-off shared lib", since we've found a case where
having a leading "lib" is not sufficient to denote that any more.

More information about the pkgsubmissions mailing list