[RFC] foobar-devel or libfoobar?!

[Hack Kampbjorn]

Stipe Tolj wrote:

> Hi list,
> 
> I'm packaging mysql-4.0.17 (without server) for dependency to various
> packages that I'll support, ie. mod_auth_mysql for the mysql based
> HTTP basic authentication for Apache and the new PHP module.
> 
> Now I get into a question: 
> According how maintainers do, it seems that libraries, header files
> and base client programs are packages as "foobar-devel" with the same
> version-revision tagging. Unfortunatly this is mileading to the things
> reflected in the http://cygwin.com/setup.html page, where such a
> package is about to be named "libfoobar".
> 
> So can we have a discurs on how a unique naming scheme can be
> entitled?! Should the mysql client programs, libraries and headers be
> named "mysql-devel" or "libmysql"?

foo-devel for all the developer needed files: headers, link libraries, devel 
documentation ...
libfoo1 for the DLL for ABI version 1 with only the cygfoo1.dll file.
libfoo2 for the DLL for ABI version 2

When I make a new wget package I have to install gettext and gettext-devel.
But those using wget only need libintl2.
> 
> BTW, this one was build with a modified generic-build-script (yes, I
> took the note cerious that it is not a generic one ;). But I don't see
> actually how I can make the libraries build dynamically too. Currently
> I do build them pure statically and afterwards use a "mkdll.sh" script
> (should be known on the list) to produce the shared DLLs and the
> import libraries. Is there a more convinient way to do this using the
> generic-build-script directlty?
> 
> Stipe


-- 
Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards

Hack Kampbjørn