Sorry about this. First, libiscsi is a really good name for a general purpose multiplatform library, like libiscsi. Second, a generic name like this is a horribly poor idea for a single distribution/ single use / obscure private library.
I want to solve a problem to make it available on all platforms. I dont like to chose a suboptimal name for this reason, but I thought I had no choice. I am not really excited with the concept of "obscure single use private library polluting the namespace like this" but what are my options ? I can live with renaming my library if that is what it takes. What do you want me to do ? Tell me and I will do it. regards ronnie sahlberg On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> wrote: > On 06.03.2012 14:07, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 03:54:19PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: >>> It looks like iscsi-initiator-utils package in fedora is built using >>> shared libiscsi which appears to be package-specific, e.g. >> >> Yes, it is the iscsi-initiator-utils package >> >>> I'd rename _that_ library to be libiscsi-initiator-utils.so, to >>> reflect the name of the package in question, since it - again - >>> _appears_ to be package-specific. >> >> That's not really practical at this time, since it has been shipped this >> way for years now, > > Why it is not practical for something which is not used for > anything but just the internal library? I'd say it was a > mistake to name this internal library this way to start > with, and now it is as good time to do so as any other time, > because, again, it is just some internal-to-the-package thing. > >> and in any case ronnie has already been good enough >> to rename to libiscsiclient to avoid the potential ambiguity. > > Now the resulting libiscsiclient has alot of _real_ ambiguity, > unfortunately. > > /mjt
