Gnome versioning issues [was Re: [ITP] glib-2.4.2-1]

[Nicholas Wourms]

yselkowitz wrote:
> Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> 
> | http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/gtk+/glib/glib_devel-2.4.2-1.tar.bz2
> ~                                           ^
> | http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/gtk+/glib/glib_doc-2.4.2-1.tar.bz2
> ~                                           ^
> Shouldn't these be glib-devel and glib-doc with a hyphen, not an 
> underscore?
> 
> Another question (or RFC): glib-1.2 and glib-2.x were made to be able to
> coexist, and calling this glib (rather than glib2) may collide with a
> (perhaps private) package of glib-1.2.  CyGnome2 has called this package
> glib2 for that reason, and some programs still use glib/gtk+-1.2 (dillo,
> gnucash, and more).  How do the linux distros deal with this?
> 

I completely agree!  Both Debian and RedHat use some form of versioning 
to distinguish between the major releases.  This is a prudent model 
since both libs are still being used.  I think using RedHat's naming 
conventions for the gnome packages ought to be a general rule of thumb. 
  So, using the RedHat model for glib:

glib-1.x -> glib-<version>
glib-2.x -> glib2-<version>

Likewise, for gtk+:

gtk+-1.x  -> gtk+-<version>
gtk+-2.x  -> gtk+2-<version>

I'd like to suggest that the names of library-only packages, like 
glib/gtk+, be prepended with a "lib", so that they show up in that 
portion of the full list and minimize confusion.  This would compliment 
the current schema of packages like popt and iconv, which were prefixed 
with lib for that reason.  I would further suggest appending [0-9] to 
the name so as to prepare for any binary incompatibilities which might 
arise.  So my final suggestion would be like so:

libglib20
libglib20-doc
libglib20-devel

Cheers,
Nicholas