Hi Mark,
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:23:31 +1100
Mark Goodwin <mgoodwin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> aside from the 'obsoletes' issues, I'm just wondering about the
> package split in OpenSuSE: is the libXXX package naming for libs
> a hard and fast rule for SuSE based distros?
The lib prefix is required as part of the openSUSE package naming
convention:
http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy
It was certainly not my intention to break compatibility with the fc
and el rpms on oss, I'm happy to add required obsoletes/conflicts/etc
tags to fix this.
> The alternative, as we
> have already done for Fedora and derivatives, is to split the libs
> off into pcp-libs and pcp-libs-devel. This is to for "multilibs",
> to allow 32 and 64 bit packages to be installed on the same system
> for those arch that support it (e.g. i686 and x86_64). See
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks#Splitting_libraries_into_separate_packages
>
> Could we unify the SuSE and Fedora versions of the RPM spec? The
> latest Fedora spec is here:
> ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/pcp/download/rpm/Latest/pcp.spec
Yes, a single unified spec file (in the git tree) would be my
preference, even if it does include a few vendor specific corner cases.
>
> Also, Fedora-15 and later use systemd, but don't have the same
> issues that Ken reported with legacy init script output being
> redirected to systemctl and then onto syslog by default. I guess
> systemd and systemctl on SuSE must have different default settings
> somewhere ..?
Interesting, I'll do some hunting here to find out what's going on here.
Cheers, David
|