OK, many thanks for the replies. Go for plain 'itpp'.
For anyone interested in reviewing the package, this is the bugzilla ticket, I need a sponsor! -> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264686
Cheers, Marco On 22/09/15 13:33, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com <mailto:jwak...@redhat.com>>wrote: On 22/09/15 10:40 +0200, Marco Driusso wrote: So I think we have two options: 1) use 'itpp' as the name of the package, which corresponds to the include dir name, but not to the lib file name (libitpp.so); in this All libraries start with "lib" but that doesn't mean the package that provides a library should do. Look at the output of rpm -qf /usr/lib64/lib* and you'll see most of them are not called "libxxx" just because they install a file called "libxxx.so". e.g. gtk3 installs libgtk-3 The project is called IT++, it installs headers in <itpp/*> and installs libitpp.so, so itpp seems the most natural name. If this wasn't a library that's linked at compile time, I would suggest also including a "Provides: libitpp" line in there too, but I think that's not necessary, since packages that would depend on it would use the library dependency "libitpp.so.8" instead, which there should be an automatic Provides generated in the itpp package. Basically, RPM does nice things for you, so you don't have to care (as much) about this kind of stuff. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
