[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libhistory4, libhistory5, libhistory6(...)

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Phil,

Am 14.03.2011 um 18:51 schrieb Philip Brown:
> If there is "only one" library (which is most commonly the case), then
> it can make sense to have the _dev name follow from "the library".
> 
> but I dont think this is so good  in the case where there are multiple
> libraries belonging to "one" package.
> 
> I think that, if there is only going to be one _dev package that
> covers all the libraries for a software group, then it makes the most
> sense to name the _dev package, after the core name.
> 
> And, interestingly, although I havent made a study of all the
> multi-lib splits that we have
> (I suspect we have very few...)
> in at least one case, you yourself have followed this methodology :)
> 
> libpcre0-8.12,REV=2011.01.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
> libpcrecpp0-8.12,REV=2011.01.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
> libpcreposix0-8.12,REV=2011.01.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
> pcre-8.12,REV=2011.01.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
> pcre_devel-8.12,REV=2011.01.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
> 
> Can we standardize on this style for naming the dev package, in the
> cases of multi-library, single-dev collections?

What I find problematic here is that we have CSWlibfoo-utils for
binaries related to libfoo. I find it consistent to have a
similar CSWlibfoo-dev then.

Or as alternative use CSWfoo for binaries, CSWlibfoo0 for library
and CSWfoo-dev for development files. However, I like the consistent
CSWlibfoo* prefix better. And we even have it in this example where
libpcre* is the common prefix and CSWlibpcre-dev is the development
package for all of these.


Best regards

  -- Dago