-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jan Engelhardt wrote: > Hi, > > > I notice, for example, > > -rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 66727 Sep 22 00:02 libelf0-devel-0.8.9-17.i586.rpm > > while I agree with the new naming scheme (libelf0), I do not for -devel > packages that cannot reasonably be installed alongside each other. > Think of libelf0-devel and libelf1-devel which both provided a file with > the same path. Without starting religious issues, would not it be better > to just continue on naming such devel packages libelf-devel, without a > number, like Debian? That would also reduce newly Obsoletes: tags, > because now, a libelf1-devel would need an Obsoletes/Conflicts: > libelf0-devel, and that's not really helping.
This is not necessarily true for all libraries. Libwpd 0.7.x and libwpd 0.8.x can be installed both as shared libraries and developer packages alongside. For libwpd-0.9.x it will be the same. In that case, having libwpd8 and libwpd8-devel would be completely justified. http://libwpd.sf.net Cheers Fridrich -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHBR0Uu9a1imXPdA8RAlbeAJwJbpd5Py/xUtK7svzkghlIHkk2twCfSBuR 3F3aH42UPXMl8wecW1uKUL8= =T/9N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
