On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:03:05 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> Well, it started as sqlite3, with good reason. Look:
>
> -rwxr-xr-x root root 29844 /usr/bin/sqlite3
> lrwxrwxrwx root root 19 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0
> -rwxr-xr-x root root 316204 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6
> -rw-r--r-- root root 52690 /usr/include/sqlite3.h
> -rw-r--r-- root root 403624 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.a
> -rwxr-xr-x root root 819 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.la
> lrwxrwxrwx root root 19 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so
> -rw-r--r-- root root 231 /usr/lib/pkgconfig/sqlite3.pc
>
> Sure, the v2 sqlite package could be rename to sqlite0 or sqlite2 if it
> will still be needed. But that's not the point.
I asked for it to be changed from sqlite3 to sqlite b/c it made little
sense to me that the package should be named sqlite3 when we weren't
providing sqlite(any number) in the rest of the distro.
There is little reason to argue about the package name as sqlite3
would have been just fine, but...
add to that the the upstream package name is sqlite, not sqlite3 and
I
didn't see a compelling reason to have an odd ball virtual provide (and
dep) for the package.
... such a virtual provides would have been the wrong thing to do, if one
wanted to make a separate "sqlite" package coexist with the "sqlite3"
package. Upstream has chosen a different namespace, so the versions can
coexist (SQLite 2.8.16 is libsqlite.so.0.8.6).