On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:30:24PM +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote: > On 2008-08-11 14:12:34 -0700, Bernard Li wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Martin Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I don't think its necessary (or good form) to include a full version > > > number in the RPM package name. RPM already does versioning based on > > > %version.
agree > this is not the package version. it is the soname mangled a bit. the > base idea behind it is, that you can install multiple version of the > same library in parallel. do you have packages in OpenSuSE that depend on specific versions of libganglia? even if I agree that doing packages this way help us from breaking anyones' environment in theory, practically we haven't (at least not that I am aware of) broke the binary compatibility of libganglia in a way that would require something as drastic as having effectively a completely different package per each minor version of ganglia. ideally we should have an stable ABI for libganglia and maintain it at least between major versions and therefore our library should be named instead : libganglia-3.so.0 doing this was in the wishlist for 3.1.0 (which is really the first library where we are using the library publicly), but didn't make it on time and is something we should be aiming for soon IMHO. Carlo PS. to be able to continue this discussion in the list, please change if possible your email address to the one you have subscribed so there won't be additional delays. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Ganglia-developers mailing list Ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ganglia-developers
