-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Cristian RodrÃguez wrote: | I do checked them ;) and critized them with patches :-) | you can now check out the improved versions | osc co home:elvigia libwps | osc co home:elvigia libwpg
Hello, thank you for your work. I would like to comment though on one thing. I don't thing that it is really necessary to have the package name redundant like libwps-0_1-1. All libraries that I maintain, I make the build system the way that between two minor releases they are parallel installable including the devel files. The reason is that they are C++ libraries and adding a method to an interface class makes them to break ABI. And since different products that depend on them might have different release cycles, it is highly likely that one will have to have two versions during some time on the system. That is why the sonames are libwps-0.1.so.1.X.Y as well as libwpd-0.8.so.8.X.Y. The other reason is that win32 build using libtool is addint the libtool versioning normally to the dll name, so I avoid the libtool versioning in the makefiles and rely on the library name only. That is why I would propose that the packages produced be called libwpg1 libwpg1-devel and libwpg-tools. This would be enough to distinguish them without really making the name too complicated. The libwpg-tools I would leave it without the versioning, because libwpg-tools produced by libwpg-0.1.x will not be parallel installable with those produced by libwpg-0.2.x. Thanks again for your work and please, people, consider this considerations. Fridrich -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHjPt5u9a1imXPdA8RArMHAJ4gwz9J1o0rzeEYuqYH/S6+GBvRIACfe5+I uotP52yKiTv6wwxi9SeTjI4= =6iOy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
