[oe] Build-time vs run-time virtuals, was: Re: python skills and bug 2412

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 17:19 +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>   Yes, thought about namespace came to my mind too. I wonder, if
> there're any ideas regarding that. Indeed, reusing "virtual-" prefix
> while being familiar, would be confusing ;-(. Any ideas about another
> standard prefix, or there would be adhoc naming conventions? From the
> examples given, at least sometimes it makes sense to use prefix-less
> Provides names:
> 
> gtk+ - real package, also implicitly provides gtk+
> gtk+-directfb - real packages, Provides gtk+
> 
> Or infamous libxine. I envision it should be:
> 
> libxine-x11, Provides libxine
> libxine-qpe, Provides libxine

Yes, various solutions like that are possible and probably the best way
to proceed.

> (The problem here is that actually built package will be linked
> against real package, and thus would apparently pull its name via
> shlib dependencies).

This is the real problem. If what Matt mentioned is correct about the
library names being embedded in the binaries at link time it could well
be doing the right thing though...

I guess someone interested in resolving this will have to experiment :)

Cheers,

Richard