[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs drill, libldns1, libldnsdevel, libunb(...)

[Philip Brown]

2011/1/16 İhsan Doğan <ihsan at opencsw.org>:
> Am 05.01.2011 21:16, schrieb Philip Brown:
>
>>> As far other packages are also packaged in the same way, I don't see any
>>> reason why ldns can't be packaged in this way.
>>
>> What, you mean like jpeg?
>>
>> or tiff?
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Here's a reason for you to consider:
>> putting "libldns" into google, comes up with debian packages as first
>> hit. Whereas googling "ldns" comes up with the proper site.
>
> Searching for libldns with Google shows, that Debian is doing exactly
> the same. --> http://packages.debian.org/lenny/libldns1
>
>> So keying things more to "ldns" instead of "libldns" (with the
>> exception of the actual shared libraries package) seems like the
>> better thing for us to have the catalog names based on.
>
> According to http://wiki.opencsw.org/packaging-shared-libraries , the
> package name is absolutely appropriate.


Ah, sorry for not being clearer. I make no arguments against the
specific package libldns1-xxx, as per our page listed above.
I would just let it go through right now, but unfortunately, the
dependency issues dont make that possible at the moment

I was thinking that it might be more helpful for our users to have
some, or all, of the other stuff, associated more strongly with
"ldns".
specifically, the "drill" package.
It looks like "unbound" is sufficently known as itself, that I
withdraw my suggestions about the naming there.