On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 08:51:57PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> Now we have two libraries (soon to be three), I'm intending to rename:
>
> PackageKit-libs -> PackageKit-libs-glib
> PackageKit-devel -> PackageKit-glib-devel

I'd personnally have put all the devel bits in PackageKit-devel, fine
granularity is not very important for devel packages, only for runtime,
in my opinion. And then runtime bits would be called without the libs
part, like:

PackageKit-glib
PackageKit-qt

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Richard Hughes wrote:

> Upstream the PackageKit-Qt library binding has been merged into the
> PackageKit scm and will be in the next release tarball. This allows us
> to keep the libraries in sync and also means QPackageKit gets a lot of
> the love that PackageKit gets.

Excellent news!

> Now we have two libraries (soon to be three), I'm intending to rename:
> PackageKit-libs -> PackageKit-libs-glib
> PackageKit-devel -> PackageKit-glib-devel
> This allows us to create PackageKit-libs-qt and PackageKit-qt-devel and
> then provide this for other QT and KDE applications to trivially build
> against.

I concur with drago01, and would personally opt for names of the form PackageKit-glib(-devel) and PackageKit-qt(-devel), but whatever floats your boat.

-- Rex

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 16:11 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> I concur with drago01, and would personally opt for names of the form
> PackageKit-glib(-devel) and PackageKit-qt(-devel), but whatever floats
> your boat.

Sounds good to me, thanks guys.

Richard.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list