[opensuse-packaging] Library naming

2007-10-04 Thread Jan Engelhardt
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

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Library naming

2007-10-04 Thread Stephan Kulow
Am Donnerstag 04 Oktober 2007 schrieb Jan Engelhardt: 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

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Library naming

2007-10-04 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, 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.

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Library naming

2007-10-04 Thread Michael Schroeder
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 05:37:28PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: That is how the new scheme was designed. If libelf0-devel and libelf1-devel conflict then the name libelf-devel should have been kept. (Of course there are some internal problems with that, in case both libelf versions are in

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Library naming

2007-10-04 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Michael Schroeder wrote: On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 05:37:28PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: That is how the new scheme was designed. If libelf0-devel and libelf1-devel conflict then the name libelf-devel should have been kept. (Of course there are some internal

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Library naming

2007-10-04 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Oct 4 2007 17:25, Stephan Kulow wrote: 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

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Library naming

2007-10-04 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Oct 4 2007 17:44, Stephan Kulow wrote: libelf-devel conflicts with libelf0-devel. Where is your point? Ah ok, I did not see libelf-devel since I was looking for lib*[0-9]-devel*.rpm. Ok, I try again, with a better package example. But not all packages follow the curl scheme, e.g.

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Library naming

2007-10-04 Thread Stephan Kulow
Am Donnerstag 04 Oktober 2007 schrieb Jan Engelhardt: On Oct 4 2007 17:25, Stephan Kulow wrote: 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

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Library naming

2007-10-04 Thread Fridrich Strba
-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

Re: [opensuse-packaging] lbuild and the strangeness of kernels

2007-10-04 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Oct 2 2007 21:38, Jan Engelhardt wrote: Hi, with lbuild-10.3, the following oddity happens: keeping kernel-bigsmp-2.6.22.9-ccj54 keeping kernel-default-2.6.22.9-ccj54 installing kernel-regular-2.6.22.9-ccj54 [...] keeping kernel-xen-2.6.22.9-ccj54 keeping kernel-xenpae-2.6.22.9-ccj54 [...]