[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libnet, libnet1, libnet_devel

Dagobert Michelsen dam at opencsw.org
Thu Nov 18 13:42:39 CET 2010

Hi Phil,

Am 17.11.2010 um 18:57 schrieb Philip Brown:
> Two comments:
> 1. the SONAME is libnet.so.1

Partly correct. The SONAME of libnet.so.1.0.2 is libnet.so which is
the one all existing packages link to:

> Why do you then provide a symlink
> /opt/csw/lib/libnet.so=libnet.so.1.0.2
> It would seem to be completely unneccessary.

Just for clarity. I could put the libnet.so.1.0.2 directly in
libnet.so without loss of functionality, but personally I prefer to
make the version explicit as there is no other place where you
can see the library version.

> 2. Given that this is a "lib" package... having "lib_devel" would seem
> to be redundant.
> What do you think of my addendum to the wiki proposal, where for
> 'lib*' packages specifically, we just put the "devel" stuff in the
> straight "lib" package?

I don't like it because the devel part of some libraries are excessively
large where you would like to keep the devel package. Special cases
are in almost all cases bad, so we either always have devel packages or
never and I so see the advantage of having devel package at all.

One more argument for having a separate devel: When we split out
real libraries like CSWlibnet1 containing libnet.so.1.1.5 the
merging of devel in there makes some of the advantages useless.
When some libnet.so.2.x comes out CSWlibnet1 would need to be respun
to rip out the devel stuff as this would now be shipped in CSWlibnet2.

> So, overall what I am suggesting to you, is:
> - move contents of libnet_devel into libnet
> - remove libnet.so.1.0.2 symlink entirely.
> comments?

Please see above :-)

Best regards

   -- Dago

More information about the pkgsubmissions mailing list