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

[Philip Brown]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Hi Phil,

*wave*


> Am 14.03.2011 um 18:51 schrieb Philip Brown:
>...
>> 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.

I'm not sure where you're getting this example from. there is no
_utils, for either pcre, or your newer readline package.
If you are referring to your recent "libaudiofile", and
"libaudiofile_utils", I would say that that is not in the case set I
described; it is not a "multi-library" set.

I will also point out that just recently, we had

bind-9.8.0,REV=2011.03.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
bind_chroot-9.8.0,REV=2011.03.13-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz
bind_dev-9.8.0,REV=2011.03.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
bind_utils-9.8.0,REV=2011.03.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
libbind-9.8.0,REV=2011.03.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz

which is another pre-existing example conforming to the style I am
proposing to be official.



> 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.
>

Errr...? looking at existing released packages, we do not have
CSWlibpcre-dev(el).
We have
NAME=pcre_devel
PKG=CSWpcre-devel